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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for @Alansohn: who feels the need to chime in here. Why doesn't someone ask him as author of most of these articles, why are they copied and pasted from biographies on the official county website? Isn't that a WP:COPYVIO? Could that be why he might agree to delete some of the articles? (although I must point out that the DeGise article itself is copy and pasted) Furthermore, as he is now trying to act as Mr. Civility, he just leveled an extreme WP:PERSONALATTACK on me in another AfD, see [1]. He has been uncivil in the past, but calling me "truly fucked up" and "fundamentally fucked up" goes way too far and IMO he should be blocked.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, i'm sorry I didn't see the massive sinkhole full of simmering hostility under this issue, but since I have now noticed it, it could be an idea that Rusf10 and Alansohn come to some mutual arrangement to avoid stamping on each others feet. Maybe if Rusf10 leaves it to someone else to wipe out all the articles on local American politicians or pauses the pace of his crusade for a while, people could calm down! Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As I've said above, I'd support the deletion of most of the articles listed in the AfD. Despite the fact that Rusf10 has been systematically stalking my edits for more than three months because of my vote at an AfD, responding "I think what is making you upset here is a conflict of interest WP:COI. I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." (see here), I do acknowledge that some of the articles I created in my first few months on Wikipedia some 13 years ago were poorly formed and should be deleted.
  The problem is that the underlying pattern of harassment that followed from Rusf10's explicit threat started with (and this is only a subset of the examples I could provide, which have been trimmed for space):
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey - a list of mayors of Teaneck (withdrawn as an inappropriate bulk nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker - a mayor of Teaneck (no consensus; default to keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek - a mayor of Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank W. Burr - mayor of Teaneck (delete)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett - mayor of Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination) - a list of mayors of Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Weil - a rabbi from Teaneck (delete)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Jachter - another rabbi from Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC - a lawsuit involving a former Teaneck elected official
• This quieted things for a while, but the stalking / harassment continued, ramping up over the past several weeks
  • Adding details about me to the article for Teaneck, New Jersey
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Adams (lottery winner) - following me to an AfD for an article that I had substantially expanded after it had been nominated for deletion
  • this edit - stalking me to an article about Urban enterprise zone to nominally fix an error
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico - the current AfD under discussion, where the majority of the articles bundled together in the nomination are ones I created, including Bill O'Dea, Jeffrey Dublin, Tilo Rivas, Thomas Liggio and Albert Cifelli, as well as the title article of the AFD for Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico and the article under question for Thomas A. DeGise.
• Per Wikipedia:Harassment, "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." I had refrained from getting involved in this AfD explicitly because of this pattern of abuse and harassment. I have tried to make it clear that to Rusf10 that the pattern of abuse is not appreciated, but the hint has never been taken, all that follows is further escalations of the abuse. I only responded here because Prince of Thieves had pinged me.
  No editor should be forced to endure this deliberate pattern of stalking and harassment. This is truly fucked up. Anything that can be done to get Rusf10 off my back would make a difference in my ability to edit without enduring the abuse. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alansohn loves to play the victim, but the fact is he opposes and attacks me for any nomination that involves New Jersey (whether or not he created the article). He clearly exhibits WP:OWNERSHIP behavior over all New Jersey related articles and its not just me, look at the numerous content disputes in his edit history and you will see he always insists on his versions of pages. Just look above, he references Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Adams (lottery winner), did he write that article? No. In fact, he didn't even edit it until after it was nominated. But, its New Jersey related, so according to him my participation there must have something to do with him. (ie. it's one of "his articles") As I showed in a previous ANI [2] which was basically ignored, he was suggesting that I be banned after I had made only a few nominations. I didn't even know who the hell he was at that point. He routinely opposes nominations just because I made them. For example, here he blasts me for not considering a merge/redirect target and then goes on to propose a completely inappropriate target (its like he didn't even read before posting his response): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Black Sr.. Or how about the fact that created the composite biography article County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey in direct response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Levinson? Alansohn has been extremely uncivil since Day 1, yet he wants to play the victim now. And for the allegation of stalking, from an edit like this [3], it is quite clear he actually "stalks" my editing history, as I explain here:[4]. And let's not forget Alansohn was actually the origin of the false allegation of WP:OUTING made by Unscintillating: [5]--Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It's all reliably sourced publicly available information that anyone could have easily found, on or off of wikipedia. I simply updated information in an article that was out of date (something alansohn routinely does for every other town in NJ). You can't use your real name as your username and then claim you have some expectation of privacy, so I don't know why we're even talking about that. Three times Alansohn accused me of outing him [6] [7] & [8]. Alansohn is actually wrong about our first interaction, its actually this: [9] A suggestion that I be topic-banned. Immediately after he posted: [10], he alleged [11] that I have a "complete lack of understanding of WP:BEFORE" and was suggesting that I been topic-banned just because he didn't like the nomination. A nomination that actually resulted in "no consensus", so obviously not everyone else though there was a problem with the nomination. That's right from day 1, Alansohn assumed bad faith and attacked me and now he's here whining that I am harassing him. It is Alansohn's MO to attack me or insist on an extreme "nothing can be deleted" interpretation of WP:AFD, rather than actually provide other policy-based arguments why an article should be kept.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know who you are, I don't care who you are, I respect your privacy -- I don't even know if you're male or female -- and I have not followed you around from article to article to undermine your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what articles to follow you around to.
  On the other hand, it bizarrely means a lot to you that you know who I am (you made the effort to rummage deep into my edit history and claim that makes me in violation of WP:COI), to systematically delete articles related to my place of residence for politicians and rabbis (?!?!?!), to correct edits to articles you've never touched before (merely because I did), to "fix" content about me and to systematically rummage through articles I've created and target them for deletion, even treating efforts to address your concerns as being in bad faith. This is the very definition of WP:Harassment and you refuse to acknowledge that you've persisted for three months with this abuse, despite persistent pleas to just stop. Per WP:HARASS, "Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking.", but that's not what I'm looking for, I just want this systematic harassment to stop and to be able to edit without worrying that Rusf10 is looking over my shoulder.
  Just acknowledge the stalking, say you're sorry, promise you'll stop, learn your lesson and we can both move on. If you can't or won't, maybe a block is appropriate after all, which would be the saddest way to resolve this matter. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

As previously stated, a county executive, who has executive authority and elected at-large, is very distinct from other subjects, Freeholders, who have legislative authority and are elected by district. Inclusion in a bundled nomination is ill-conceived. It should be split:Procedural KEEP/WP:IAR?

Despite warnings in Wikipedia:Bundle to be very cautious in doing so, nominator has caused problems before with bundled nominations. One hopes that s/he will be realize that they can cause confusion, and unless a clear-cut case of an example given in the policy, refrain altogether from making them. As suggested by User:Enos733, Wikipedia:Bundle could be made clearer as to avoid depending on "feelings" of nominators, which can be untrustworthy.) As observed by power~enwiki (π, ν) there has an "astonishing amount of controversy" regarding state-related topics recently. I would support the idea that ARBCOM needs to examine the issue.Djflem (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant whether the roles of county executive vs. county freeholder are different in actual on the ground fact — because the Wikipedia inclusion tests for county executive vs. county freeholder are not any different from each other: either way, it's "sourceable to enough media coverage to satisfy NPOL #2". There is nothing about DeGise that AFD needs to evaluate any differently than anybody else in the bundle, no Wikipedia inclusion standard that makes DeGise any more "inherently" notable than anybody else in the bundle, and on and so forth. Is there a difference in what they do? Yes. Is there any difference in what we have to do about and with that difference? No, there isn't — a county executive is not any more "inherently" notable than a county freeholder is, but still has to pass exactly the same "sourceable to nationalized coverage that marks him out as significantly more notable than most other people at his level" test as any of the freeholders do. So arguing to "they have to be separated because they do different things" is an abstraction: they don't have to be separated, because the differences in their roles does not create any difference in the relevant includability standards. It would simply be a waste of time that wouldn't produce a different result, so the principle of WP:SNOW applies — there's no value in reversing a prior action just to put an article through another process that will still produce the same result anyway. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: You're putting the cart before the horse. As I said on the nom page: While it is convenient to use or ignore policy when it suits a preferred outcome it can be taken as a form of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Active or tactic complicicy for the abuse of the policies, guidelines, procedures to which editors (to the best of their knowledge) adhere and upon which they rely is damaging to Wikipedia. A sense of propriety should prevail and not suffer for the sake of expediency.

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

Clearly DeGise article does not fit into any of the above examples, so we are left with "feeling" from an editor. In a flurry of mass-nominating the important detail that DeGise is distinct was missed. (The nominator went back later to cover his tracks.) And should not have been included. One can cite policies such Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:POLITICIAN here as a way of avoiding the subject, but the nomination is FLAWED. If indeed policy is so important, then they should ALL be followed. Neither GNG nor POLITICIAN is more important than Wikipedia:Bundle. I'm sorry, but the argument of any editor who would suggest they were is greatly diminished by doing so and would imply that disregard for proper procedure in such a delicate area as deletion noms is acceptable. So, indeed it does make very much of a difference that the two political positions are not he same. The outcome of the nom does not justify the means by which it is made. The main issue here, as outlined above, the nomination itself. Yes, there is a great value in doing things properly on Wikipedia.Djflem (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're 100% wrong here. There is absolutely no violation of WP:Bundle. The examples you cite are simply examples, nothing more. They do not cover every possible use of WP:BUNDLE. What the articles I nominated have in common is the following: 1. They are all articles about county-level politicians and therefore WP:POLITICIAN applies to all 2. They are all poorly sourced 3. The vast majority (including DeGise) are likely CopyVios. And please elaborate on "went back later to cover his tracks", I do not understand at all. I added the additional article shortly after the nomination was made as per WP:BUNDLE. What are you trying to say?--Rusf10 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: why did YOU find it necessary to amend the nomination and make a specific point clarifying the distinction that DeGise is the county executive and not a freeholder, as are on the others?Djflem (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an amendment to the nomination, that was part of the original nomination. And why would you oppose me giving an explanation? (as I did there) If you actually arguing for clarity, then that provides it. However, it seems like you're just trying to wikilawyer this.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

It really is quite wikilawyery to argue that since this situation isn't specifically covered by any of the examples named in BUNDLE, it's therefore an inherently invalid BUNDLE — the definition of the words "example" and "limited guidance" are that the list is not an exhaustive compilation of all the situations where it applies, but that there can be many other similar examples that have not been specifically named. There's simply no reason why DeGise is an inherently invalid bundling with the other people he's been bundled with — his job title may be different than the others, but the inclusion and sourcing standards that his job title has to meet to get him included in Wikipedia are not any different. It is not irrelevant or "avoiding the subject" to point out that the inclusion rules for "county executive" are the same as the inclusion standards for "county freeholder" — it goes directly to the heart of the matter, because the heart of the matter is whether DeGise can be bundled or not. But again, just because BUNDLE doesn't list an example that corresponds directly to that situation doesn't mean that BUNDLE is inapplicable, because BUNDLE is listing a few representative examples of where it applies and not every situation where it applies. Now, BUNDLE would certainly be violated if somebody tried to sneak Donald Trump into an AFD batch of non-notable county councillors in the hope that people just voted "delete all" without noticing that he was hidden in the batch — but batching a bunch of county councillors together is not a BUNDLE violation just because they don't all have the same job title, because they do all have the same notability standard that has to be passed to qualify for an article. The notability standards are not an irrelevant distraction from the matter at hand — they're the crux of whether the matter at hand is a policy violation or not. And it's simply not, because the notability standard that DeGise has to pass is not any different from the notability standard that anybody else in the batch has to pass. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Without intending to comment on the merits of the bundling, personally I would have suggested that the disputed nomination was just procedually closed. I don't see how the fact that a few people have !voted for delete all affects things. Their !vote to delete the other articles is not affected by the removal of this one article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Their !vote to delete this one article is affected, but there's a fair chance it's just going to be closed as a no-consensus for that article anyway. So why continue to waste time on it? A new nomination can be opened for that one article, and they, and everyone else who has already participated in the bundled AFD can be invited. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an IBAN?

Deletion TBAN proposal for Rusf10

Refusal by Alansohn to remove personal attack

In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey discussion I removed a clear personal attack he made about me, leaving the portion of his comments that were actually relevant to the discussion [24]. And what does he do? He restores the comments saying that they were "improperly deleted in a previous edit", see [25]. Then he arrogantly acts as if he cleaned up the personal attack by changing the word "fucked" to "f-ed", like that really makes a difference. For the second time, he has restored the personal attack [26], commenting "restore comments; for someone who uses AfD as the preferred method of personal attack and harassment, should we just delete all of your AfDs and solve the problem? It's time to address these issues, not delete them". He is insistent that his personal attack is justified and both times he has removed unrelated comments made by myself and an other editor for no apparent reason. Since I don't want to engage in an edit war, can someone else please straighten this out.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even more incivility by Alansohn

At another AfD for an article I nominated for deletion, Alansohn has launched a personal attack at another editor who voted delete. User:Johnpacklambert pointed out (IMO correctly) that because of the number of county freeholder articles Alansohn has created that he must believe holding the position makes someone notable. Alansohn responded by calling him "an editor who sits on his ass all day long voting delete" and accused him of "destructive deletionism" (the same thing he has accused me and countless others of in the past) [27] I bring this up to show that Alansohn's behavior towards other individuals that he disagrees with is exactly the same as towards me. When he sees a deletion discussion isn't going his way, he gets mad and starts attacking people. When is an admin going to step up to the plate and deal with Alansohn's behavior?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 has edited this thread dozens of times, trying to WP:BLUDGEON his way through to avoid his pattern of harassment. To provide the context of the tag team work of Rusf10 and Johnpacklambertis this vote, where JPL opines "The extremly subject-specific reviews in minor coin collecting publications do not add up to a pass of the general notability guidelines. Beyond this, Alansohn is being misleading in putting forth this arguement. A review of Alansohn's activities shows he has assumed that merely being elected as a county freeholder in any county in New Jersey, but evidently not to equivalent positions in any other state, makes someone notable on its own. That is why he created this and so many other articles on non-notable people, and so his arguments about Ganz role as a writer amount to a smoke screen to avoid facing the real issue, that this article was created on the assumption that Ganz was notable as a politician and Ganz clearly is not notable as a politician." Surely Rusf10 is OK with this. Alansohn (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're accusing me of collusion with JPL? And yes, as I said above, I am okay with his post because he makes a valid point. It is that you assume that all county level politicians from New Jersey are notable. I strongly believe that you did not create the article because of Ganz's books (which have no been proven to be notable anyway). Notice that he attacked your argument but didn't call you any names. In contrast, you statement was a clear personal attack which is why another user (not me) removed it from the page [28]. But now I'm sure you're going to accuse me of colluding with that person too.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with chronic WP:HARASS by Rusf10

The reason that we're here in the first place is that Rusf10 has been systematically stalking my edits for more than three months because of my vote at an AfD, responding "I think what is making you upset here is a conflict of interest WP:COI. I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." (see here). Following up on that threat, Rusf10 began a series of AfDs directly targeted at that threat:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey - a list of mayors of Teaneck (withdrawn as an inappropriate bulk nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker - a mayor of Teaneck (no consensus; default to keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek - a mayor of Teaneck (keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank W. Burr - mayor of Teaneck (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett - mayor of Teaneck (keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination) - a list of mayors of Teaneck (keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Weil - a rabbi from Teaneck (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Jachter - another rabbi from Teaneck (keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC - a lawsuit involving a former Teaneck elected official (delete)

With the overwhelming majority of articles kept, one would have hoped that Rusf10 would have walked away, but has persistently refused, following up with more provocations, stalking and harassment:

• Adding details about me to the article for Teaneck, New Jersey
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Adams (lottery winner) - following me to an AfD for an article that I had substantially expanded after it had been nominated for deletion (article was kept by consensus)
• this edit - deliberately stalking me to an article about Urban enterprise zone to nominally fix an error
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico - the current AfD under discussion, where the majority of the articles bundled together in the nomination are ones I created, including Bill O'Dea, Jeffrey Dublin, Tilo Rivas, Thomas Liggio and Albert Cifelli, as well as the title article of the AFD for Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico and the article under question for Thomas A. DeGise.

By definition "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." No editor should be forced to endure this deliberate pattern of stalking and harassment. Rusf10 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather has focused on abusing process to exact some sick form of revenge for my vote three months ago. What is needed to make this stop once and for all? Alansohn (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many times are you going to copy and paste the same exact thing???? This is an exact copy and paste of what you said already above. Do you have any idea how obnoxious the copy and pasting of the same long post over and over again is? I already responded to this exact post above, so I'm not going to do it again. --Rusf10 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, isn't copying and pasting the same thing over and over again WP:BLUDGEON? Every thing Alansohn accuses me of doing is exactly what he does.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that your pattern of harassment is the topic of conversation, you've stalked me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Phil Murphy (this edit), less than a half-hour after I've edited the article. Certainly not a sign of trying to de-escalate. I understand that you're angry; you've been trying to exact your revenge, to get your pound of flesh or put in ax in my skull for the past three months since I edited the Bill Zanker AfD. The problem is that this is exactly the pattern of abuse that WP:HARASS describes: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." And it's had its intended effect to make editing as unpleasant as possible.

This was your 37th edit to this ANI thread; no one else is even close. I hadn't edited in this discussion for about a week. Why not step back and allow other editors to take a look and see what they make of what I clearly see as intended as stalking without a 38th, 39th, 40th edit (or more) on your part to further WP:BLUDGEON your way through. Maybe you could try to walk away for 48 hours, or maybe just 24, and I'll do the same. Take the time to edit an article, add a source or perhaps do some copyediting. Maybe even create a brand new article. It's amazing what can be done when you try to build an encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn:First, please post the definition of harassment here 10 or 15 more times (the bold text really helps too), and you want to talk about WP:BLUDGEONing? Here we have another example of you making things up. You accuse me of following you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Phil Murphy something I actually came across in the delsort. Notice I didn't mention you at all in my vote there [29], so I fail to understand how that constitutes harassment. Or is it that you consider the suggestion of deleting (or in this case I suggested a merge) anything New Jersey-related to be harassment since you WP:OWN the topic? Now let me ask you a question, how did you end up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin L. Crawford (2nd nomination) [30]? It is not an article you had any involvement in nor is it an article about New Jersey. Could you be stalking me? Seriously Alan, are you stalking me? Because that looks like a more credible claim right now than the one you're making. And then again, maybe you're not. Do I care? No. Did you know that accusing others of harassment without proof is also considered harassment? (see WP:AOHA) So I am going to ask you to immediately stop with the allegations of stalking. I willing to step away from this discussion, but not if you continue to make false statements about me or continue with the personal attacks. And by the way I don't know where you came up with your math, by my count this is the 19th time I commented in this discussion, which is almost half of your number (what are you counting minor edits such as spelling corrections or something?)--Rusf10 (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Close- we already had two ban discussions based on the same identical evidence, and these failed to gain consensus. It's unlikely to be any different this time round. Asking the same thing over and over again in hopes of finally getting the answer you want ca be considered disruptive. I suggest closing this before the conversation gets any nastier. Reyk _YO! 13:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• ARBCOM - this is going nowhere, and I feel the continued disruption at AfD is unacceptable. I've filed for arbitration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any reason we couldn't just ban Rusf10 from nominating articles created by Alansohn for AFD? Nobody seems to have proposed this as a standalone option. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose Close my checking with the editor interaction tool suggests there is a stronger case that Alansohn is following Rusf10 around in 2018. I've worked out a plan with Rusf10 that should sort out this mess. Rusf10 will no longer personally nominate Alansohn's creations or pages he is a major contributor to. That will eliminate the alleged harrassment of Alansohn. I've also advised Rusf10 to ignore Alansohn's posts and move on. If he does that, the heat will go way down. Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacypac, your client is creating problems for your efforts here. Following my edit to the article for Westfield Garden State Plaza, your client Rusf10 stalked me to a talk page discussion about the edit (here) directly related to my edit. There are millions of Wikipedia articles, yet Rusf10 consistently ends up stalking me time after time to the same articles I've edited, this latest incident taking place the day after you making the case that he's backing off. Just get this guy off my goddamn back once and for all. If he refused to do it and you can't get him to stop with the stalking, maybe the community can deal with this persistent harassment. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn attacking my efforts to defuse a situation you are at likely at least 1/2 responsible for by calling another editor my "client" [31] is at least really rude and borders on a personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, you're trying to help and I appreciate that. It's Rusf10 who is the problem here. After promising to back off, he jumps right into a discussion related to my edit; there's something fundamentally wrong with someone who simply cannot stop stalking me and my edits. If he can't solve his own problems and take your advice, let the community deal with his harassment. Just get him off my back. That's all I've ever asked for. Alansohn (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated claims another editor is stalking someone deserves a closer look. Since Feb 1 [32] Alansohn edited 10 pages first that Rusf10 later edited. Rusf10 edited 29 pages first that Alansohn later edited - about 3 times more potential stalking by Alansohn. Taking just the month of March [33] we find Rusf10 at 6 pages first and Alansohn only at one page first. Admittedly raw numbers are not the only story, but it's a great start to sanity check a stalking claim. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the pattern I listed from December, where Rusf10 nominated a dozen articles for deletion related to the place I live; as he nominated the articles for deletion and I voted to keep, am I stalking him? Let's look at February's edits, which include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey, where Rusf10 nominated an article I created minutes after it was created. He created the AfD of an article I created, but if I respond I'm stalking him?

If you want some good-old-fashioned stalking, there's always this group of edits at Paramus Park, deleting content I created.

Where's the article that Rusf10 created that I voted to delete? Where's the article that Rusf10 has edited where I've reverted an edit or jumped in on a discussion? Where's the restraint Rusf10 has shown, when one of a grand total of three edits made all day today is this one, stalking me to a discussion about an edit I made yesterday.

I'd love to avoid dealing with Rusf10, but it takes two to *NOT* tango. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating a bunch of very similar pages of questionable notability is not stalking. This [34] (which Alansohn cites as stalking) looks like a very good edit. No article needs a list of bus routes with detailed descriptions of them any more than it needs a list of every road and highway to the subject. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominating a bunch of very similar pages of questionable notability is not stalking. Nominating a bunch of very similar pages of questionable notability is not stalking because I edited them, created them or have a connection to the place is the very definition of harassment
  Was the Paramus Park a good edit? maybe. Did he follow me to the article? Absolutely! The same way Rusf10 nominated articles related to my place of residence, you'll argue that they should have been deleted. Are you seriously arguing that stalking is OK, as long as you believe that the edit was OK?!?!?!
  For maximally malicious stalking at its worst, there's this edit. This is an article Rusf10 never edited before, where the only purpose was some demented desire to show that he knows who I am, where I live and what I do. That's some fucked-up, stalker style shit.
  Just get this guy off my goddamn back. If you can't control him, let the community deal with his bullshit. Alansohn (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn:- When does the personal attacks and profanity stop? You obviously do NOT want to solve this problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=825659216] was a good edit to an article that I have edited several times before and is on my watchlist. It's not YOUR article. Try, just try to read WP:OWNERSHIP and understand that you behavior is unacceptable.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this edit and explain that this is not rather fucked up stalking. The intention was clear; you know who I am, you know where I live and you're going to continue to fuck with me no matter how I try to respond. Explain away this bullshit move. Get off my goddamn back. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. Everyone knows your name (your choice of username) and anyone paying a little attention knows where you are from generally. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is obvious horrible wp:HARASSMENT. Calming down is not appropriate. Alansohn is quite clearly, obviously a victim of permanent-ban-worthy behavior on part of Rusf10. --Doncram (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Earlier I estimated that Alansohn was responsible for about 70% of the personal attacks in this dispute, which still seems to be true. Now it seems he's also responsible for three quarters of the "following the other guy around" behaviour as well, as shown by Legacypac's interaction analyses. Let me be clear: Alansohn is following Rusf10 around three times as often as the converse, while simultaneously wailing "why can't you leave me aloooonnnnnneeeeee?!??" This is not actually believable. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving towards possible solutions

Legacypac and Reyk: Considering that ArbCom is likely to turn down the arbitration request on the grounds that the community is still handling this issue, and considering that both editors appear to have legitimate grievances about the other, suggesting that this thread be closed seems to me to be an unwarranted choice. Rather, I think someone needs to craft a solution, or a pair of solutions, which will resolve the problems presented here, and which the community can agree to. That's a bit more difficult then usual considering the number of proposals that have already been floated and turned down, but I don't think it's impossible. Perhaps more consideration needs to be given to more precisely tailoring solutions which restrict the behaviors complained of, but which don't otherwise unnecessarily hinder either editor from going about their normal editing. I can't say that I've looked into the specifics of the problems very closely, but I suspect that if there is to be a resolution, it's not likely to be either a symmetrical one or a unilateral one. I also think that it will be very difficult to achieve that goal if both editors continue to snipe at each other in this thread. Perhaps they could agree to a mutual across-the-board cease-fire while the community puts itself to trying to come up with a resolution? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd not looked very deeply into the issue either before I put out a partial solution that would address the claim Rusf10 is targeting Alansohn created pages while not protecting the pages from scrutiny. I've now run the editor interaction tool a few different ways and each date range suggests any stalking is actually coming more from Alansohn, though he is making the most noise about alleged stalking. Crying "stalking" based on someone maybe following him to a single Article in March to make a talk page comment on a publicized RFC seems to be a pretty weak case. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would probably be best to stay away from words such as "stalking" and "harassing", just to keep the temperature down enough to allow some unemotional attention to be given to the problem bu uninvolved parties. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:Thank you! I almost posted something that probably would not have helped the situation (because how infuriating Alansohn's latest comment is above) but when the edit conflict message came up, I read what you wrote and reconsidered. As you're probably already aware Alansohn purposefully misrepresented our discussion on my talk page in his ArbComm statement. I feel like I am making a good faith effort here, but Alansohn refuses to even admit the slightest responsibility. Without him admitting that he is part of the problem, I don't see this getting resolved without the community imposing some type of ban or block on him (which by his response above should be justified). I encourage you, @Beyond My Ken:, and others to review this carefully before making a proposal. What also needs to be considered is Alansohn's past behavior. This is nothing new and its not just me. Alansohn's block log Doing a search of ANI for Alansohn comes up with 163 hits, I don't have time to look at them all, but here's a few. Some relevant ANI you may want to look at: Claims of stalking and harassment by Alansohn Previous Arbcom on Alansohn's civility [[edit-warring and calling another editor a dick Another discussion about his ownership behavior of New Jersey And there's so much more. Given this has been going on for years and Alansohn's behavior has not changed, he's making the exact same accusations about me that he has made about others in the past. He tries to use the alleged harassment by others as an excuse (and distraction) from his own poor behavior, which to my knowledge he never acknowledged.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10: I think it would be a good idea if both you and Alansohn were to forbear from further commenting in this thread until such time as there are proposals to comment on. You have both had more than sufficient space to present your case, both above, and in the arbitration request. It would be best if you restrained yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly or wrongly Alansohn has not been blocked since 2009 so that is not a strong argument. BMK and I have many hits in ANi too so that's not a strong argument either. Not posting anymore is a great idea. Many are aware of Alansohn's general mode of operation. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental question is: should Rusf10 be limited in any way from nominating New Jersey-related articles at AfD? Without a clear consensus on that point, I don't believe a solution can be found. Behavioral remedies (a limit of one comment per AfD; a prohibition on accusations outside of WP:AN/ARBCOM pages) may help, but Alansohn is unlikely to be satisfied without there being a limit, and Rusf10 is unlikely to be satisfied with there being a limit. This makes a "compromise" solution that both parties will be happy with basically impossible. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps voluntary restrictions and guidelines? If they refuse to accept, the community votes? Legacypac (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The two proposals I am familiar with are an IBAN (which I support) and a TBAN on RUSf10 deleting. I opposed the TBAN because it was too far reaching. However, the more I read this, I think maybe the best solution would be both an IBAN and a TBAN for BOTH editors. Neither editor would be able to interact and neither would be allowed to edit/nominate for deletion New Jersey related articles broadly construed. Both blocks would be indef with appeal after 1 year. That should be sufficient time for both parties to cool down. 35.1.238.10 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I am copying here some of the comment of arbitrator Opabinia regalis from the arbitration case request, on the theory that not everyone is following that closely, and that the remarks may be helpful in crafting a solution:

  ...The IBAN proposal at ANI may have failed, but that doesn't mean "leave each other the hell alone" isn't the answer here. ... My recommendation is that Rusf10 either focuses his deletion-related efforts on something other than New Jersey, or focuses his New Jersey-related efforts on something other than deletion; and that Alansohn significantly reduces his participation in NJ-related AfDs should others make them. ... Both sides accuse the other of harassment and hounding; if you stop interacting about content, you won't have any reason to interact at all, and the conflict should cease. It would be much better to just agree to do that now than to end up with that result or some variation of it after six weeks of mudslinging. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  OR's full remarks can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I haven't been following the arbitration case. I like Opabinia regalis's comments. 35.1.238.10 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After collaberating with several uninvolved but experienced editors and taking into consideration wise comments made at the ArbCom case I propose the following solutions. I'd like the indicated editors to respond directly accepting or declining the solution BEFORE there is a big debate. If they accept, an Admin can enact. If they decline, we can hold a vote. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This works well, I think. 2601:401:500:5D25:394D:D812:E5D3:5D4B (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Solution #1

User:Rusf10 in the interest of deescalation will you agree to a WP:TBAN to not directly Tag for notability, PROD or AfD any article created by Alansohn or where Alansohn is a major contributor? Restriction to run 6 months and then expire. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:I would accept this with the condition that solution #2 also be accepted. Of course, just to clarify, this would not prevent me from creating a list as we discussed on my talk page.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct hence the "directly" wording. I'm hoping you will accept without regard to Proposed Solution #2 which will either be accepted or voted on. We are trying to eliminate reasons to fight here. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a compromise requires both sides to give something, so I don't think its unreasonable for me to ask.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can compromise on your own and get reduced drama. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• How are we defining major contributor here? It could be any edit not marked as minor or done by an semi-automated program, or it could be any article with a certain number of bytes added, or something. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac and Prince of Thieves:This is actually a good question that I'd like to know the answer to. I have take major contributer to mean adding significant content to the article (something beyond adding categories, correcting typos, reformatting, etc.). I don't think any edit not marked as minor would be a good thing to go by because what gets marked as minor is very subjective and someone may make a minor edit and forget to mark it as so (I know I do sometimes).--Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure at all. These are some of my thoughts; Adding a single sentence to a stub is as major as adding a paragraph to a larger article, where the same single sentence would be trivial. So I can't see it being measurable by edit size. However any restriction relying on subjective assessment of edits could become problematic if challenged later. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt, just add to your list. If he made one little change over 50 revisions ago no worries. You are not being put under an IBAN but if I were you I'd avoid him everywhere possible as some editors will look for any excuse to try to get you under an IBAN. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Solution #2

Proposed Solution #3

If User:Alansohn still wishes to pursue an IBAN against Rusf10 based on past behavior that they assemble the case and send it to any member(s) of ArbCom they wish (and who agrees to review it) for an opinion. If a member of ArbCom indicates it has merit, the case can be brought to either AN or ArbCom for a discussion and vote by uninvolved members/users. If the reviewing Arb decides no merit, than no case may be lodged. Is this acceptable to both User:Alansohn and User:Rasf10? Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is so much a solution. Nothing really stops Alansohn from doing this now if he so desires.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's made the case at ANi and ArbCom but there has not been much support for actioning it. If he accepts this Proposed Solution there remains a good path for him to air his grievances in a structured way. If he rejects, other users might vote to impose this solution or something more narrow on him involuntarily. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is entirely possible that if a solution is not amicably agreed on by Alansohn, the community would be under more pressure to act than last time because of the comments to that effect made by ArbCom, and the fact this is taking up even more time and energy than before. Obviously the effort put into resolution would also be seen to be of no consequence should that happen. I urge against it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed IBAN against User:Alansohn

Throughout this thread User:Alansohn has made many allegations of stalking and harassment against User:Rusf10 without convincing very many editors that these allegations are correct. This is not a symmetrical problem. Even though a TBAN proposal failed above, Rusf10 has agreed at Proposed Solution #1 (A TBAN) to not directly nominate any pages by Alansohn but Alansohn [40] has rejected Proposed Solution #2 and continues to cry harassment against the evidence that shows in the last 2.5 months Alansohn is following Rusf10 around at least 2-3 times as much. I see no evidence of acceptance of any blame for this dispute or willingness to compromise on Alansohn's part. Making repeated false claims against another editor IS harassment and it is NOT ok. Posting those claims in all bold is uncivil. ArbComm wants the community to solve this so it is time for the community to consider: Alansohn is WP:IBAN'd from interacting with User:Rusf10 for six months, subject to WP:BANEX. If this passes, Proposed Solution #1 (a TBAN) would also be formally enacted.

• Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Legacypac has claimed that "the evidence suggests that, at least since Jan 1, Alansohn has been following Rusf10 far more", but rather deliberately ignores Rusf10's blatant pattern of harassment that preceded his arbitrary January 1 cutoff. This misrepresentation ignores the nature of the order of interaction; Rusf10 nominates articles for deletion, I am notified on my watchlist equivalent at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Jersey that the AfD had been added to the list and I edit the article and / or participate at the discussion. This fact has been identified by Gatoclass and neither Legacypac nor Rusf10 has rebutted the point or offered any evidence to support the claim. There is not one single article that Rusf10 either created or is the primary editor where I have followed him to edit the article, tag the article or nominate the article for deletion. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I have never done so and will never do so, Legacypac is trying to manufacture a solution to a problem that he knows does not exist in order to manipulate process on behalf of Rusf10. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you accept this IBAN you get a TBAN in your favor where Rusf10 will not be nominating your work. Instead you keep complaining. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose one-way IBAN.Support combined IBAN/PS#1. I'm generally opposed to one-way ibans, but when combined with PS#1, I think that resolves my qualms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In its current form this reads as if it would prevent alansohn from commenting on AfD's of articles he created or sustainably contributed to if Rusf10 nominated them for deletion or comment on the AfD first. Any IBAN would really have to have at least some element of two-way restriction. I think that Proposed Solution #1 is supposed to deal with that, but it could be made clearer that this is in effect a partly two way IBAN. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is partially two way as we are also removing any chance for Rusf10 to target Alansohn pages. - just above Alansohn admits to having a system that leads him to follow Rusf10 to every NJ related page he nominates. A review of those AfDs shows his efforts to oppose Rusf10's noms are hostile and counterproductive and that is the reason for the whole ANi amd ArbComm Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: as it's not quite a one way IBAN, do you still hold the same view? Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks for pointing that out - revised opinion above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support combined IBAN/PS#1. I don't see this editorial conflict coming to a stop without some enforced arrangement to stop it, common sense dictates that a reasonable arrangement is to impose as few restrictions as possible to stop the disruption while also allowing those involved to carry on contributing productively. I think this achieves that. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the combo IBAN/PS#1. It's become very clear where the real problem lies. Reyk _YO! 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support meh on PS1, but they seem to be fine with it, so I don't oppose it. I think Legacypac makes a strong case for a 1 way IBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is either this or more drama and disruption here or as an ArbCom case. Neither editor has particularly covered themselves in glory here but I am disappointed that we must force a solution on Alansohn after Rusf10 accepted a voluntary restriction to help defuse the situation. That, in addition to the comments by Alansohn in this undying thread make me think that this will prevent the ultimate loss of Alansohn as a contributor to the project should this continue unchecked. Jbh ^Talk 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this doesn't resolve every issue, but should help solve the current untenable situation. If Alansohn truly believes that there was an outing attempt, and he doesn't want his account to be formally tied to his real-world identity, he should stop repeating the details publicly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also would support a two-way IBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; one-way interaction bans are virtually always a bad idea. If two users are being disruptive, do a two-way interaction ban and avoid the possibility of gaming; if one user's being disruptive, ban him from a subject area or impose a block. No comment on which of those is the case here, or if zero users are being disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose From what I have seen above, neither editor comes out of this smelling like roses. I'd say a two-way IBAN would make more sense a one way. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  the two way IBAN proposal failed [41] This combines a TBAN on one editor (which he has accepted) and an IBAN on the other (which he has rejected). Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct Legacypac, the original IBAN proposal went beyond the standard IBAN and proposed prohibiting one another from even posting on the same page. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless it's a standard two-way IBAN. Otherwise, just stick to the TBAN. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The TBAN was voted down and so was a two way IBAN. Your preference is for rejected proposals, which is fine, but this vote solves nothing. If you accept this proposal you also get the TBAN. If Rusf10 deserves an IBAN later you or anyone else is free to propose it with evidence. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, you just said your proposed TBAN had been accepted, and now you're saying it's been !voted down? You are conflating two different proposals, the TBAN which was !voted down was for a blanket TBAN against Rusf10 initiating AFDs and PRODs, while your latest one, which you said was accepted by Rusf10, was only for a TBAN on initiating such discussions on articles created or substantially contributed to by Alansohn. The latter is the TBAN I said I would support. Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not voting on Proposed Solution #1 (a TBAN) but we get it IF this IBAN passes. Legacypac (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I still oppose an IBAN unless it is a standard two-way IBAN. And I think Rusf10 should stop nominating Alansohn's articles for AFD regardless, because if he doesn't, nothing has been resolved and we are likely to find ourselves back here again in no time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: If you want Rusf to stop those nominations in order to prevent this from coming back here, why are you opposing? I supported the two way IBAN, but it's simply not on the table anymore. This is a one way IBAN but it would be part of a two way sanction that would involve the voluntary TBAN you want to see. It's an interaction-TBAN/IBAN instead of an IBAN/IBAN. You could literally look at this as a slightly modified two-way IBAN. Why in the world would you rather have nothing and have to have this discussion all over again "in no time", than simply support a two-way sanction? Swarm ♠ 23:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way the TBAN is framed makes it very close to being an IBAN anyway. Since it affects articles based on them having been edited by Alansohn rather than by a strict topic. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support combo IBAN and P#1 as per Prince of Thieves & Tony 35.1.249.96 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Rusf10 is willing to voluntarily accept a sanction to deescalate this toxic conflict, with the simple condition that Alan does the same. Why Alan is unwilling to voluntarily accept a deal that attempts to deescalate the situation, I can not understand. But if we have to impose the second half of the deal involuntarily, so be it. It's the last, best shot we have to address this. Best case, this arrangement works, worst case, ARBCOM can see that we tried and were unable to resolve things. But we need to do what we can until it gets to this point. Swarm ♠ 23:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with PS1. This is a giant time sink, and if someone won't volunteer to work out a solution, they can't complain when one is forced on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Definitely a giant time sink, and spare me the "one-way ibans don't work!' guff. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this is explicitly NOT support for Proposal #1. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with PS1. One way Ibans are always risky by combined with PS1 and considering that while Rusf10 seems to accept they are part of the problem, Alansohn seems to have difficulty accepting that they too are part of the problem, as evidenced by the accusations etc in this thread, I feel this is one of the rare cases when it is justified. As others have said, this is clearly a giant time sink as evidenced by the multiple threads and how long this one has hung around and while we should rush into hasty action, it's clear some action is needed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• support failing that action against Alansohn for persistent harassment through contantly casting unfounded assertions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I certainly would have preferred that both parties accept voluntary restrictions, but that not being the case, it appears to me that the combination of the voluntary restriction accepted by one party (Proposed Solution #1), and this involuntary restriction on the other party, covers the problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #5 - Arbitration Enforcement

I have contacted this user seven times with no response, see User talk:DeAllenWeten, especially User talk:DeAllenWeten#Sources. The messages were about creating articles with big issues, mainly that they were unreferenced. Another editor also contacted them about adding unsourced content. They have only ever responded to one talk page message although they have been editing for a year.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V, but they won't respond or address the issues. Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeAllenWeten is continuing to edit but not respond or comment here. Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been several days now, where DeAllenWeten is editing but won't engage. I think it's time to move to an indef block. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There's a serious problem with User:LoveVanPersie, who keeps adding incorrect IPA transcriptions to Wikipedia articles (there are about 50 wrong transcriptions that I've fixed in the last four months + some that I fixed back in August/September). He's been warned multiple times not to do that and he just ignores that. This is clearly an issue of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He used to tell me that he's 'truly grateful' for all the corrections I'd make (I know, I should've reported him weeks ago) and then go on making the same mistakes.

For previous reports/discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics/Archive_12#Broad_IPA_Edits and Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_130#LoveVanPersie's_transcriptions. In the second discussion it becomes clear that he can't really read relevant literature to improve his knowledge of phonetics/phonology because his English is too poor. He's relying on other users to clean up after him (mostly me) and teach him phonetics/phonology for free (mostly me).

Bear in mind that this list is far from complete and it could be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm afraid that is precisely the case.

Spanish

[42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]

• Having serious problems with identifying stressed syllables and either incorrectly guessing them or mishearing them (12x);
  • In these edits the transcription is sourced but it's still wrong: [73], [74]
  • These edits ([75], [76]) are further evidence that he's unable to consistently identify stressed syllables. He added correct IPA and then made it incorrect by misplacing the stress mark.
• Mistranscribing words with irregular/adopted foreign pronunciation (5x or more, I'm not sure how to count them);
• Lack of awareness of phonotactics, which caused him to consider /st/ and similar syllable onsets permissible and to think that words can end with [m] in isolation just because the word-final consonant is spelled ⟨m⟩ (3x);
• Mistaking ordinary Spanish letters for IPA symbols (3x);
• Mistranscribing the velar nasal [ŋ] as if it were alveolar [n] (2x);
• Typos (2x);
• Guessing the IPA (1x);
• Mistranscribing the tap [ɾ] as if it were trilled [r] (1x);
• Mistranscribing the semivowel [w] as a full vowel [u] (1x);
• Mistranscribing word-final [s] as [z], an allophone that can only ever occur immediately before voiced consonants (1x);
• Mistranscribing words with regular pronunciation as if they had an irregular pronunciation (1x).

Slovak

[77] (this one was discussed on my talk page), [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]

• Not knowing the rhytmic rule, which says that no more than one long vowel can occur within one word (3x);
• Guessing the IPA (2x);
• Copying and pasting IPA from [84] to [85] without checking it's correctness (it was seriously incorrect as [r̝] occurs in Czech, not Slovak. In fact, the absence of that sound is one of the defining characteristics of most Slovak dialects.);
• Changing [ɲ] to [n] just because he thought that it sounds more like the latter (even if it does, the correct transcription is still [ɲ]) (1x);
• Mistranscribing words with irregular/adopted foreign pronunciation (1x).

Serbo-Croatian

[86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]

• Writing [v] and [ʋ] in the same transcription and getting them wrong anyway (1x);
• Labelling a latin spelling of a surname as an IPA transcription (1x);
• Typos (3x);
• Mistranscribing the syllabic trill [r̩] as if it were non-syllabic [r] (1x);
• Mistranscribing the postalveolar [ʒ] as dental [z] (1x).

English

[94], [95]

• Thinking that just because a surname is spelled one way it means that all people pronounce the same (and neither of those guys pronounce it /ɡuˈtʃiːoʊni/!) (2x);
• Mistranscribing a surname (1x);
• Changing a correct transcription to an incorrect one (1x).

Dutch

[96]

• Mistaking a long unstressed vowel for a stressed one;
• Mistranscribing a long [yː] as short [y], which is an impossible pronunciation before /r/.

French

[97]

• Mistranscribing the open vowel [ɑ̃] as if it were mid *[ɔ̃]. He probably just copy-pasted that transcription from Florian (name) without checking it (it's wrong).

German

[98]

• Changing the IPA from correct to completely incorrect. The transcription is so incorrect that you can wonder whether he posted it on purpose.

Polish

[99]

• In this edit, he added the transcription of Kuba to the existing transcription of Jakub Błaszczykowski and didn't change the final consonant of Jakub from voiced to voiceless. This produced a seriously incorrect transcription that no native speaker would be able to read without making an effort and without sounding strange.

Slovene

[100]

• Not an IPA issue, but he called Simonović a Slovene surname. It isn't - it's a foreign (Serbo-Croatian) surname used by some Slovenes. Native Slovene names use ⟨č⟩ instead of ⟨ć⟩, reflecting the fact that Standard Slovene has only one voiceless postalveolar affricate (/tʃ/).

To his defense, he does seem to be learning and he now knows that e.g. Spanish words can't begin with /s/ + stop or that Slovak words can't have more than one long vowel. But what good is that if he keeps making tons of other mistakes every month?

Also to his defense, most of his Serbo-Croatian transcriptions are spot-on.

Once again, I apologize for not reporting him sooner, which I should've done.

Pinging @Adam Bishop, Aeusoes1, Medeis, Nardog, Nihlus, and No such user: who might be interested in this. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Can you elaborate? I know that this is a lot to analyze, but it needs to be resolved. I don't want to clean up after LVP anymore. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your post will take time to digest. OK, seriously, it does seem there's a problem here. However, I'm bound to say that I am seriously, seriously skeptical of the usefulness of IPA pronunciations anyway, since you could fit the people who understand them in a phonebooth. If anything, they should go in a footnote, not clutter up the first few words of each article. But that's not, of course, what this thread is about. EEng 03:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, our article Electrical engineering does not have any IPA in the lead. Perhaps we should make that a general policy, along with IAR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: See WP:PRON. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find IPA transcriptions useful, at least for languages I already know...but anyway that's besides the point. We were speculating on the Reference Desk that LoveVanPersie is actually the banned Fête (talk · contribs), although maybe they are just coincidentally similar. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: You may as well argue that musical notation shouldn't be included in articles about music because most readers can't read music, or that the output of the various Template:Math templates shouldn't be used on mathematics articles because most readers can't understand the formulas used in, say, differential calculus. I sure as hell can't.

IPA is to linguistics as the periodic table is to chemistry.

That said, IPA transcriptions should be like any other entry, not just personal opinion but backed up by references from reliable sources, and I agree there is an ongoing issue here. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)--Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the use of IPA in linguistics articles, just as I support the use of math notation in math articles and chemical notation in chemistry articles. Outside of such articles, these specialized notations should be used with discretion, not plastered everywhere the way IPA is. For example, the article on Entecavir doesn't start out Entecavir (C₁₂H₁₅N₅O₃), sold under the brand name Baraclude... The chemical formula belongs in an infobox or footnote, not underfoot right at the start of the article, and the same principle should be applied to pronunciations. EEng 14:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shirt58 that IPA transcriptions should be referenced. An ordinary editor who has often been confronted by unverifiable changes in them.SovalValtos (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notified LoveVanPersie of this incident. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

No harm in that but just to let people know, LVP was notified by Mr KEBAB, just not with a standard template or at the bottom [101] Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kebab, for being so patient while the community catches up to this issue. You've put in a lot of work in tracking LVP's disruption and cleaning up after him/her.

Quite a few of these look like LVP meant to put a correct transcription but transposed letters, like he/she couldn't be bothered to check before hitting submit. I don't get what LVP's endgame is here. If s/he truly wants to help the project, adding sloppy transcriptions is not helpful. I'm particularly troubled by the mistakes with Spanish transcriptions, since Spanish has a very transparent orthography and transcriptions should be obvious to someone, especially after months of practice and feedback from other editors. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's aware of this discussion and continues to put IPA into the articles despite that (I've already caught him misidentifying stress in two words - see [102] and [103]), I think it's safe to assume that he just doesn't care. Wikipedia is a personal blog to him. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bump (more incorrect transcriptions: [104], [105], [106], [107]). Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slightly informed hypothesis (not saying it's likely, just that the likelihood is enough above zero that I'll mention it) that the purpose of LVP's project is to benefit various data mining operations that use Wikipedia as a knowledge corpus, and that someone is paying him to do this. The intended consumers don't care much about the error rate as long as the info is mostly right. They should really be working with Wikidata but apparently Wikidata's content policies are not to their liking. IMHO an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference work made for use by humans, so I wouldn't tolerate this. I'd support an immediate stern warning, followed by a block if the problem continues. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I better look into the contribs some more before giving much credence to the above. I can't do that now but will maybe try tomorrow. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by stating that although Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs) and I have a tempestuous history, as seen here, here and here, and she began editing medical and anatomy articles because of me (as that history shows), this report is not about that. This report is about about our health articles being some of our most important articles and Barbara (WVS) having repeatedly been a detriment to these articles. The fact that she is a part of WP:Visiting Scholar (although she's not a scholar) makes it even more essential that she not be a detriment to our health articles or topics (some of which she creates) because students are sometimes referred to her or look to her edits to learn. We cannot have editors learning and taking on this style of irresponsible and error-proned editing. Below are examples of Barbara (WVS)'s editing, from most serious to least serious, that really do show that more competence is required to edit in these areas. It also shows that even when challenged on errors, it is common for Barbara (WVS) to stick to her guns and insist that she is correct. Also keep in mind that our anatomy articles fall under "medical" as well.

Now I understand that people make mistakes, but the mistakes by Barbara (WVS) are too often and sometimes too serious to reasonably allow her to continue to edit medical and anatomy articles. The above are just examples. There is also the fact that Barbara (WVS) has a tendency to defend her mistakes as correct. Again, these our health articles. So I ask that the community consider restricting editing her of these topics indefinitely. I am asking for an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed. She has recently banned herself from editing the Vagina article, but this is not enough since that is just one article and (as stated there) she does not see a pattern in her problematic editing and has plans to return to that article after six months. The same issues will be happening with other articles, and with that article once she returns to it. We should not continue to allow an editor with issues such as these to continue to edit in these fields simply because she is with the Visiting Scholar program and creates a lot of medical articles. How many of these articles have serious issues? Pinging Jytdog, Rivertorch, SilkTork, Tom (LT), Johnuniq and SandyGeorgia, who have all expressed concerns about Barbara (WVS) editing these areas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Doc_James, as he might want to say something as well. Classicwiki (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Gandydancer who edits in similar areas. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I manage the Visiting Scholars program for Wiki Education. As such, I have a COI with regards to Barbara's edits as a Visiting Scholar. Here are a few clarifying comments you can take as you will:

• The Visiting Scholars program aims to support Wikipedians by providing access to academic resources through a university library. The comment that "she's not a scholar," presumably a comparison to the academic definition of 'scholar', misunderstands the purpose of the program. Participation in the program shouldn't affect editing habits except to equip editors with more research resources.
• Regarding the last bulletpoint (use of paywalled sources), which refers to something I said: When the Visiting Scholars program began, many of the goals/responsibilities of the Scholars were left up to the institutional sponsors to decide. We had not yet developed our current best practices. Back then, part of the way the program was presented to sponsors was to talk about how it could increase traffic to their collections. That doesn't happen anymore. We changed the way we engage with sponsors around the same time Barbara was getting involved. Since then, this is the program in a nutshell: "a Wikipedian who wants to contribute to a particular topic area receives a university login and keeps track of the articles they improve along the way." I.e. editing as normal, with access to better sources, and no responsibility to use them or link to them in any particular way. So I would believe it if Barbara felt like she was supposed to do just that, and I apologize to her and to the community for not doing more to ensure the expectations of early program participants complied with community expectations and standards.
• Regarding "students are sometimes referred to her" - This is untrue. We do not refer students to Visiting Scholars, as we have Wikipedians on staff who support students. Recently, I did connect a Wikipedia Fellow (an academic, not a student) interested in women's health topics to Barbara, but that is the only instance.
• Moving on to more general comments about this proposal: First, pinging only people likely to agree with you in an ANI report strikes me as problematic. Given this the topic of this thread is about a topic ban rather than user conduct issues, it seems more appropriate to ping all editors active on those pages and/or WikiProject Women's Health.
• Most to the point: The list above indeed includes some examples of when Barbara has been wrong. It gives an example like list of vaginal tumors, pointing to Barbara's overuse of a problematic reference. But anyone who doesn't click through to the page before judging on a topic ban wouldn't see that it was Barbara that created the page, with 33 references. The same is true for some others. Barbara has created and improved a huge number of medical articles. I would encourage any editor who intends to opine here to take a look through an Xtools report of her most edited articles to evaluate her general ability to contribute to the topic area in addition to looking at the list above. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Ryan suggested, I am pinging members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health. Doc James (already done), CFCF, Clayoquot, D.c.camero, FloNight, Fluffernutter, Foxtreetop, Hmlarson, Kaldari, Keilana, Little_pob, Michael_Goodyear, Mvolz, Netha Hussain, Thsmi002, and Whispyhistory. Classicwiki (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have only had minimal interactions with this editor. She offered to help with Women's health but stated she did not understand the citation style. I offered to help her, but heard nothing more. A blanket ban seems a bit drastic. Do we know what her qualifications are? Is there a role for mentoring? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan (Wiki Ed), the reason that I noted that Barbara (WVS) is not a scholar is so that editors here would know that she is not one. It was not about confusion on my part. I pinged editors who know of Barbara (WVS)'s problematic editing. Her problematic editing is what is under scrutiny here. Most of the editors I pinged have worked with her and/or tried to work with her. Tom (LT) in particular, who is our top anatomy editor, was indifferent to her until assessing a proposal she made at Talk:Vagina. If I was aware of all of the editors who see Barbara (WVS)'s editing as a net positive, I would have pinged them. But I am not aware of many or even a few who do, except for you. Furthermore, here at WP:ANI, pinging every editor of WikiProject Women's Health and/or WP:Med is not required. It also skews the matter because what one can wind up with is editors opposing to restrict Barbara (WVS)'s editing simply because they think she's nice, like her, and/or because she edits a lot of medical topics. It's well known that Barbara (WVS) is often polite. But politeness and editing/creating a lot of medical articles does not equate to competence. Plus, there are people who are a part of WikiProjects who are not on an official WikiProject list. I am a part of WP:Med, but I am not on a list there. Like SilkTork, who was also indifferent to Barbara (WVS) until assessing her problematic editing, I do not see that whatever benefits exist regarding Barbara (WVS)'s editing outweigh the negatives. SandyGeorgia was also indifferent to Barbara (WVS)'s editing until seeing her in action after she (SandyGeorgia) posted this section at WP:Med. And I made it very clear that Barbara (WVS) churning out medical article after medical article (a number of which are not needed and end up merged and/or should be merged) does not mean that she should continue to be allowed to edit in, and create articles for, these areas. If you are willing to put the Wiki Education Foundation above the accuracy and quality of our health articles, then I must disagree with you. I would rather have no article than an article potentially full of errors and sloppy editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn Can you succinctly provide a list of 1-5 links that you are labelling problematic editing? Hmlarson (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC) I've gone through the edits provided - and I'm not seeing many diffs - just your repeated talk page interactions with this editor, which seem fine and allow other editors to provide input to garner WP:CONCENSUS. Without knowing every detail of your previous interactions, I will say my first impressions with the way this is presented reads more like a smear campaign to me with very little stickiness. I agree with Michael Goodyear that a blanket ban is drastic. I also agree more attention needs to be paid to the fact that "Barbara has created and improved a huge number of medical articles" per Ryan (Wiki Ed). Hmlarson (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson, is the list in the collapse box not enough? Do you think any of what I listed there is not problematic? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson, no, not a smear campaign. Jytdog, Doc James and I have had to fix Barbara's errors and/or otherwise clean up after her a number of times. One article where Doc James has consistently corrected her is Cystocele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doc is more content than some of us when it comes to fixing Barbara's content. Barbara edits some of the same areas that I edit in, and began editing these articles after interacting with me. Any diff and/or linked discussion involving me is merely because of that. But enough of the issues I linked to do show egregious errors and editors (sometimes me included) trying to explain to her that these are errors. The diffs are there in the talk page discussions. I'm sure that others can provide more diffs showing issues. Often, Barbara's initial response is to be defensive rather than listen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be helpful to clarify that some of the problematic edits were made with Barbara's personal account (User:Bfpage), not her WVS account (User:Barbara (WVS)). Since part of the complaint is that she has set a bad example to those following her semi-official(?) work, it would be helpful to show diffs from mistakes made while using her WVS account, or explain why it does not make a difference which account she uses. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the examples definitely involve her Barbara (WVS) account. On her Barbara (WVS) user page, she notes the difference between the accounts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I will weigh in with my own observations:

1. Prior to this issue being raised, I had independently noticed some edits made to women's health articles by B that were of low quality, and this surprised me, enough so that I did briefly investigate B's user page and editing history because of this.
2. I was also surprised to see "scholar" there, so the point about it being slightly misleading I also agree with. I'm not sure if there are any practical concerns with this however.
3. Prior to this issue being raised, I had also independently noticed one of the initially pinged users egregiously attacking B for really no good reason at all in a talk page and found it a bit shocking.
4. Pursuant to #3, I observed that B did not back down. In my opinion, because in this issue they were correct, I had considered this a good quality. However, in reading what you posted above, it appears that this is common behaviour and is done every time regardless of whether B is in the wrong.
5. I concur with Ryan (Wiki Ed)'s observation that the addition of volumes of material is overall of a beneficial nature, because we have plenty of missing content in this project.

Although I agree that B sometimes demonstrates a lower level of competence in these areas than I would ideally like, on the other hand I believe that the community is still able to improve upon these new articles and that the addition of this content is overall, a benefit to our coverage. The key point is that these articles are fixable, and that they wouldn't exist without B. This would not be the case if the articles were not salvageable or if the articles' existence wasn't useful. Damaging articles that are already of high quality however is more worrisome, however, it seems like in these cases mentioned the issue was satisfactorily resolved (although this may be selection bias), albeit perhaps with more conflict than was necessary.

Since being notified of this, I have also looked at User:Barbara_(WVS)/articles_created and I was very excited to see what B had accomplished in a short amount of time. I especially liked seeing Template:Breastfeeding and Breastfeeding and medications as I had actually noticed that content in this area was not great a few years ago and never got around to doing it myself. I would be sad to see one of the very few editors adding needed content in these neglected areas be topic banned.

I agree that there are definitely some issues here, but I think a topic ban (on both accounts) is far too aggressive at this point in time. I fine with it if it was decided that B should edit with the Bfpage account on women's health topics instead of the Barabara (WVS) account. Mvolz (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mvolz, in this discussion, it seems that some editors may be underestimating the effort and strain it puts on others to fix these kinds of errors, or to review Barabara (WVS)'s edits because of the errors they are likely to contain and to then have to fix and/or to discuss the matter unless we are to leave the errors in. If you have not yet done so, see what Tom (LT) and SilkTork recently stated. Part of the strain comes from Barabara (WVS) refusing to acknowledge that she is wrong. With Tom (LT), she recently acknowledged some faults, but that is not standard for her. As for creating new articles, there is no deadline. We don't need Barabara (WVS) to create all of these articles. And why should we allow errors to remain in an article even for a day? Are we saying that it's okay for Barabara (WVS) to edit with the lack of care she so often exhibits because the article will eventually be fixed? Errors can stay in articles for years. And as noted before, a lot of articles Barabara (WVS) creates are not needed and can fit in existing articles or be merged with them. See this discussion, where she notes that a number of her articles have been merged and that she "usually [...] can turn four sentences into a brand new article that has enough references to stand on its own." Thing is...she never takes WP:No page into consideration. I don't understand this "quantity over quality" viewpoint I am seeing right now. I could create a whole bunch of articles as well, but I actually care about the content I put out there. I'm not going to sloppily throw together an article with possible errors in them and hope that others fix/clean up the content for me. When I see Barbara (WVS) churning out these articles, I don't see that she actually cares about what she is adding. If she did, she would take the time to proofread all of it and ensure the accuracy of it. All I see is an editor more concerned about her article count (in order to look more prolific than she is) than someone who is actually passionate about any of this. How can an editor reasonably be passionate about content and not do their best to ensure the accuracy of the content? There's a reason that SilkTork, one of our most prolific reviewers, has been clear that although he is interested in working with Barbara (WVS), he does not want to work with her on a medical article because he does not trust her editing medical articles.

Also, regarding "noticed one of the initially pinged users egregiously attacking B for really no good reason at all in a talk page and found it a bit shocking," do you mean Jytdog? I ask because he is the only editor I pinged that has had a tempestuous history with Barbara (WVS). I haven't seen him attack her for no reason, though. If you mean me, I haven't attacked her for no reason either. Also, I would classify my interactions with her more as concerns than attacks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be brief, the more I look into Barbara's edits, the more concerned I am. I am concerned that

• Barbara has a lot of issues with verifiability, one of our core principles.
• Barbara uses close paraphrasing, and in an attempt to avoid this, alters facts
• A not insignificant portion of Barbara's edits are incorrect
• A number of other editors share these views.
• The time required to track and discuss Barbara's edits is great

Content addition is not an excuse, our information is reposted throughout the internet and our core mission is to be an encyclopedia, ie. give readers accurate an encyclopedic content that is verified. An editor that contributes lots of content has a higher burden to make sure that content is accurate. If it is not, it is just taking away the time of another content editor to track and fix said edits, or worse, disseminating wrong information. I would like to see:

1. A mentor appointed, to help Barbara and also to have someone supervise and monitor her edits
2. Barbara follow through with her commitment to check edits she has made over the last 6 months
3. A commitment to slower editing of articles, with the understanding that mainspace is for finalised content additions --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addit.

• As an example, see the lead of List of vaginal tumors. This still contains close paraphrasing, and is so grossly incorrect that I think speaks to the gravity of this situation. "The terms mass and nodule are synonymous with tumor". "Vaginal cancers are malignant neoplasms that originate from vaginal epithelium,"; "Cancer that has spread from the colon, bladder, and stomach is far more common than cancer that originates in the vagina itself" (probably correct, included twice; but - not found in source??)
• Vaginal epithelium: For the sake of demonstration,

1. " Hafez ES, Kenemans P (2012-12-06). Atlas of Human Reproduction: By Scanning Electron Microscopy. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 1–6. ISBN 9789401181402." not on page 1-6.
2. USMLE Lecture notes is not a reliable source.
3. "The cells of the vaginal epithelium retain an usually high level of glycogen compared to other epithelial tissue in the body" is not present on p154 of stated reference
4. Where is anything related to "Vaginal epithelium forms transverse ridges or rugae that are most prominent in the lower third of the vagina. This structure of the epithelium results in an increased surface area that allows for stretching" in its supporting three references
5. Where is the claim to uniqueness or permeability in the two references for "This layer of epithelium is protective and its uppermost "?
6. Three references for "stratum spinosum is part of the parabasal layer". I can't find this in the first two references I can access?
7. Where is this claim "Intermediate cells make abundant glycogen and store it" in this source: "5 minute clinical consult"?
8. "Estrogen induces the intermediate and superficial cells to fill with glycogen" where is this in the sources? source 2 doesn't mention intermediate or superficial cells. Source 1 says estorgen stimulates cells to mature, which is characterised by filling with estrogen

I would like to ask some other medical editors to contribute here. These authoritative-looking sourced edits are not uncommonly both incorrect and incorrectly sourced. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC):::I would like to begin to respond to Tom (LT)[reply]

• Much of the content you use to demonstrate my problematic edits as being examples of close paraphrasing in the lead of the article List of vaginal tumors is in the public domain and published by the US govt with no copyright restrictions except for attribution.
• The content is not grossly incorrect. The terms mass, tumor, neoplasm, and nodule are synonyms or at least have significant overlap according to the National Cancer Institute:

“Tumor - An abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should. Tumors may be benign (not cancer), or malignant (cancer). Also called neoplasm.” National Cancer Institute public domain content, no need to paraphrase.

“Mass - In medicine, a lump in the body. It may be caused by the abnormal growth of cells, a cyst, hormonal changes, or an immune reaction. A mass may be benign (not cancer) or malignant (cancer).” National Cancer Institute public domain content, no need to paraphrase.

“Nodule - A growth or lump that may be malignant (cancer) or benign (not cancer).” National Cancer Institute public domain content, no need to paraphrase

“Neoplasm - An abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should. Neoplasms may be benign (not cancer), or malignant (cancer). Also called tumor.” National Cancer Institute, public domain content, no need to paraphrase.

• Vaginal cancers are malignant neoplasms that originate from vaginal epithelium.

“Carcinomas start in epithelial tissues.” Cancer Research UK

“About 70 of every 100 cases of vaginal cancer are squamous cell carcinomas. These cancers begin in the squamous cells that make up the epithelial lining of the vagina.” From the American Cancer Society

“Melanomas are tumors that arise from melanocytes or the pigment cells. A common form of melanoma [is foundin the]…lining of the urogenital tract, respiratory tract and the gastrointestinal tract. In 3% of healthy women, melanocytes can be found in the basal portion of the vaginal epidermis…”Primary Vaginal Melanoma, A Rare and Aggressive Entity. A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Barbara ✐  ✉ 11:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After informing the editors on the talk page of the Vagina article that I was in the midst of some serious family and personal issues, which I would have preferred to communicate via email but was informed that was unacceptable, it may have been seen as an opportune time to appear here on ANI to level these 'charges'. This effectively removes me from significant participation in this discussion as the editors monitoring the talk page of the Vagina article have noted. I understand the reasoning behind initiating this discussion but question the timing. I'm not sure this figures into this discussion at all, but it might be possible to delay the closure of this discussion to accommodate the difficulties I am experiencing right not. If an administrator would like to contact me by email I would be happy to discuss this. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your real-life circumstances were not taken into account because this is something that needed addressing now instead of months from now, when the recent stuff regarding the Vagina article and other stuff would be considered old news. It's not something that should simply have been restricted to the Vagina talk page. I don't see that we needed to hold off on this because you said you've had a death in the family. We don't know what is going on in your personal life. And I'm not stating that you are being dishonest, but this wouldn't be the first time that an editor has said that they are dealing with personal issues (including a death in the family) after their editing has been highlighted as problematic. I am dealing with significant health issues. It's yet another reason that I've wanted to work with SilkTork again and go ahead and get the Vagina article where it needs to be. But I don't want sympathy, and so I keep my real-life issues to myself. I didn't even express this to him. I understand that telling fellow editors can simply be about ensuring that they are more understanding of what is going on with an editor, but it's still something I usually keep to myself. As you know, SandyGeorgia is also going through health issues regarding her husband, but she still took the time to weigh in here. And the reason we know about her husband's health issues is, in part, because she cares about what we put into our medical articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences, Barbara. You only disclosed this information after emailing users involved and after I had expressed my concerns. In addition you are still making large amounts of edits. If this is a difficult time, it may be best to take a short wikibreak so that the stress of Wikipedia isn't contributing to what must already be a difficult period. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I share many of the concerns raised by Flyer22 Reborn, Tom (LT), and others. My experience with Barbara (WVS) stems entirely from my recent work to help prepare Vagina for GA review. I have noticed what appear to be competency issues, as well as behavioral issues, with her participation there. I am anything but an expert on the topic, so I don't feel comfortable commenting on the basic merit of her contributions, but I will say that more than a few of her edits have been hasty and poorly executed. If this happened only rarely, I'd be inclined to dismiss it as an aberration—everyone has off days, after all—but it has happened multiple times in the several weeks that I've been actively involved with the article.

When the problem edits have been brought to her attention, her responses have been less than ideal. While invariably remaining perfectly civil and often even friendly (for instance, she left an award on my talk page—a kind gesture), she tends to get quite defensive, insisting that she is acting in good faith even when no one has suggested anything to the contrary. She has also demonstrated a propensity for endorsing a consensus reached on the talk page but then making edits contrary to that consensus. And she has repeatedly alluded to more work needing to be done on the article and suggested that it will be a lengthy process, an approach which effectively puts any ideas of moving forward with the GA review in limbo; this seems quite unfair to editors such as Flyer who have shown enormous diligence in their work to improve the article and would clearly like to see it promoted and move on. Taken as a whole, such behaviors have caused considerable consternation among other editors and contributed to what has become an atmosphere on the talk page that for all its civility is best described as toxic. This needs to stop.

Most recently, at Talk:Vagina, Barbara (WVS) laid out two hypothetical scenarios about editors making errors. I'm not entirely sure what her point was, but I have to say that either scenario would indicate a major problem: whether an editor is making ten errors per month or only three, it's way too many, at least if we're talking about important articles about anatomical or medical topics. Such articles demand extra care, and on Vagina at least, Barbara hasn't shown that. Nobody expects perfection, but if one is repeatedly showing an inability or unwillingness to slow down and take great care before clicking on "Publish changes", then it would be better to avoid editing such articles entirely. I understand that she adds a lot of content on topics where our coverage may be skimpy, but I don't buy the argument that that somehow compensates for making careless mistakes; the seriousness of an error isn't mitigated by its relative infrequency or by any number of unproblematic edits made elsewhere. (Maybe the situation was different ten years ago, when WP was still something of a novelty and desperately lacking content, but now that we're invariably at the top of the search results and millions of readers are depending on us, accuracy must be prioritized over comprehensiveness.) Personally, if it were demonstrated that I was making repeated content or sourcing errors in a particular topic area—or indeed doing anything to needlessly cause serious concern among several of my fellow editors—I'd be inclined to back off and go do something else. I think it would be most helpful at this point if Barbara were to agree to desist from editing articles on medicine or anatomy. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 11:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara pinged me about this discussion a few hours ago and I've just noticed it. I've been on a wikibreak for a little over a year but have now decided to step back into editing. I've never worked on content with Barbara but we do get on well and I'd be happy to take on mentorship if that would suit her and those above expressing concerns about her work. I'm well across Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines and have a lot of experience in medical content. I was a founding board member of WikiProject Med Foundation, and I'm probably more concerned about the accuracy of our medical content than most. (I'm signing off for the night now and should be back online in about ten hours.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anthony. When I proposed my mentorship on the talk page of the Vagina article I was hoping you would be agreeable. Thank you for your help. I certainly agree that I will be able to better see my errors, admit my mistakes and move forward with your sound advice. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 23:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Anothonyhcole, a knowledgeable editor, has offered to mentor Barbara and because it does seem Barbara does produce good content alongside some bad judgements, I feel a topic ban is probably premature. I support mentorship under anthonyhcole and oppose, at this stage, a topic ban. If the mentorship does not resolve the problem then a topic ban could be revisited.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast! No one pinged Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Health ... oops, never mind.

I was actually brought into this when this unnecessary and out-of-the-blue meanness occurred on my talk page. Seeing no context for that kind of post, it raised red flags, and I thought maybe it was being suggested that I needed to do some sock checking for You Know Who. After reviewing considerable edits from both of Barbara's accounts, the conclusion was no need for an SPI. There are behavioral and personality similarities, mostly that both are very thin-skinned and when they get defensive, talk discussion is derailed, but there are significant differences in editing style and competence.

I have been at a loss about what to do about this situation, because mentoring of the similar account never worked. I am also concerned about a double standard in restricting one medical editor, when equally dangerous and egregious editing has occurred in the last month on the prostate suite of articles by three male medical editors, who are generally held in high regard, and have not been called to task for a pattern of much-too-hurried and at times inaccurate editing. One editor reinstated outdated medical info after I replaced it with current information, with no explanation or discussion. I have pointed out these edits on article talk and my talk, and notice that we haven't heard from those editors in this discussion. I hope they are realizing that another medical editor is being called to task for exactly what they have done. Yes, Barbara deleted accurate text from prostate articles rather than tag text that needed better sourcing, but other editors have added worse text, outdated text, and left the articles with grammatical errors-- errors of the type that lead to more egregious inaccuracies in the articles than what Barbara did. Nonetheless, four wrongs don't make a right, and this situation needs a solution on its own merits.

I think Anthonyhcole would be an excellent mentor, and believe that to be a good route to go, but because we have been down the mentoring path (unsuccessfully) before with a similar editor, I suggest we impose a couple of conditions before jumping to a conclusion:

1. Something outlining when the Bfpage vs the Barbara account is to be used.
2. History of mentoring an editor with a similar behavioral profile shows that mentorship won't work without an acknowledgement from Barbara that her editing is a problem-- no excuses, no thin-skinned defense. She has to acknowledge the problem, and agree to go along with Anthonyhcole's mentorship.
3. Something about how to allow Flyer (who edits with competence) to pursue GA or FA without interference from these accounts.
4. Some way to address the unnecessary meanness aimed at Barbara I mentioned above should it occur agaiin-- that sort of behavior is spread all over medical editing, and Anthonyhcole is not an admin, so how will he be able to deal with that if it occurs?

With some conditions in place, I believe we can avoid losing an editor in an area where we have too few, and hopefully help Barbara edit well within her competency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, because @SilkTork: was a mentor to the other editor I mention, I defer to his judgment and suggestions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here directly to Sandy's comments above. Mentoring Mattisse was very demanding, and there were several of us doing it. Mentoring in this case would work better if Barbara herself wanted it rather than merely accepted it as a condition to allow her to continue editing medical articles. I would be happy to work with Barbara on non-medical articles, but only if she gave up editing on medical articles voluntarily. I think Barbara is already an asset to the project, and would be an even greater one if she applied herself positively to areas where she can work without conflict. If she continued to edit medical articles, with or without a mentor, I fear there would be continuing strife and non-productive problem solving, and the de-motivation of at least one of our known good medical contributors. SilkTork (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I thought you meant that it was Barbara who made the grammatical mistakes. That's another aspect of her editing. Either way, I agree that Anthonyhcole, who I'm familiar with, could be a great mentor. I'm unconvinced that mentoring would work in this case since Barbara's behavior and style of editing is her own and is something unlikely to change. It's not just verifiability we are concerned about, after all. But if that is what editors want to give a shot first instead of a topic ban or some other type of editing restriction, there isn't anything I can do about that. I was going to leave the idea for what type of an editing restriction to go with for someone else to suggest. For example, a temporary editing restriction with conditions. I wondered if requesting an indefinite topic ban might seem heavy-handed to some, but I was/am that concerned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were so many grammatical errors left on the prostate articles, that I stopped trying to figure out which of the editors had introduced which errors, although I am fairly certain it was not only Barbara. I posted about just a few on talk, asking other (not Barbara) editors to please slow down and take more care with their edits. Yes, I see the problems with Barbara relative to Verifiability, and I saw that she deleted accurate content that only needed better sourcing. I wish I could say she was the only editor who was not demonstrating sufficient care with a topic (prostate cancer and screening) that will affect one in six men, but unfortunately, I have seen at least four medical editors making serious errors in that suite of articles. Who knew that women's health issues were more important on Wikipedia than men's? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a subtle and delicate situation. When Flyer asked me if I was interested in doing a GA review of Vagina she alerted me to the tension on that article between herself and Barbara. My response was that I welcomed editing tension between two strong editors on such a complex article, as it generally encourages robust editing when editors have to argue for and justify their edits, so I wasn't concerned. I was a little unclear on Barbara's use of two accounts, and the use of WVS in the name of her Barbara account; however, the usage is for record keeping, as explained here.

I kept at a distance, then Barbara asked me to take a look. I didn't like what I saw from either Flyer or Barbara, as edit warring had occurred. We prefer talked through solutions to editing disagreements, especially between experienced editors. However, in this instance it was clear that Barbara had initiated the conflict by inserting substantial text against the consensus arrived at on the article talkpage. It was a surprisingly unwise move to make in the circumstances. I glanced at some of Barbara's recent edits, and noted this and this, which didn't strike me as helpful, and seemed to be oddly "pointy" in that it seemed as though Barbara was keen to discover errors in the article - yet in doing so, she was altering acceptable content and either replacing it with dubious content, or none at all. In short, it appeared that she was making mistakes, and making mistakes based not on attempting to improve the article, but on attempting to score points (as suggested by her edit summaries). It seemed to me that she was editing on the Vagina article just a little beyond her skill set, and was not behaving collegiately.

I asked a few medical editors to look into her contributions, and everyone had the same conclusion. Barbara is an enthusiastic and hard working editor who has access to sources, and who can be an asset to Wikipedia, but she doesn't always understand the sources she reads, and is often unable to put what she reads into a wider context. It was proposed during discussions that the matter be brought here, but I advised against that as she is not doing anything against Wikipedia policy, and her editing and behaviour problems are low key, and can be corrected, and she was engaging in discussions. My feeling was that any approach made here would be met with: "she wants to help, she can help, she just needs to be guided: give her time and see how it works out - perhaps try mentoring". The name Mattisse came to mind. Not that I thought Barbara and Mattisse are the same person, but more that they share the same behaviour pattern, and cause the same problems. Both were enthusiastic and hard-working contributors who could offer so much to the project; but both created a lot of stress and time-consumption for other editors. I am very familiar with the Mattisse connection as I was one of Mattisse's mentors and I have the same empathy for Barbara as I did for Mattisse.

I pondered if asking Barbara to stop editing on Vagina, and offering to help her edit elsewhere would solve the issue. She has created some decent articles which could be brought to GA standard. But I decided not to interfere so strongly, hoping instead that matters would be resolved on Vagina, especially after another talkpage consensus on how to edit the article seemed to have everyone's agreement. But then she did this (removed sourced content with another pointy comment that needed substantiating), and I began to wonder if it was time to tempt her away. So I made my offer, which she refused. I still hold out hope that she will see sense herself, and stop editing in an area where she creates stress for herself and others. I am concerned that, like Mattisse, Barbara brings unnecessary toxicity to Wikipedia, and wears out editors who are doing good work. I have huge respect for Flyer, and I know she suffers under such editing conditions. I am unclear through all the months of struggle what positive contributions Barbara has brought to the Vagina article, but they have come at a disproportionate cost, and I fear we are wearing out a very good contributor in Flyer. My preference would be for Barbara to accept that she is creating more problems than solutions at Vagina, and quite possibly at other medical articles, and to edit in other areas where there is no conflict, and where she can do some good. SilkTork (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is all highly unfortunate for all. Anatomy should not really be that controversial. I approached this from a neutral point of view, and as one with training in conflict management. I took a look at the lead on List of vaginal tumors and was dismayed at the standard. I spent the morning trying to clean it up, but it requires far more than I have time for just now. So if that is representative, there is a problem. I still support mentoring but with feedback to the group as to whether it is showing any progress. Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio problems

In at least 5 times, spaced over a year, editors have picked up and reported to Barbara re. either copying or close paraphrasing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Diannaa in March 2017 (response: "I will be more careful") here.
• Doc James in December 2017 (response: "Yikes! I will remember that"). link
• Shalor (Wiki Ed) in February 2018 (response: "I will... figure out what I did wrong"). User_talk:Barbara_(WVS)#Vaginal_support_structures
• Diannaa again in February 2018, same link as above
• Me in March 2018 at Talk:Vagina proposed and copied without attribution from List of vaginal tumors which is close paraphrasing from source page [108], Talk:Vagina#Concerns

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom (LT) (talk • contribs) 00:15, March 18, 2018 (UTC)

More data points

I have never had a direct conflict with Barbara, and I see a lot of goodness in what she does for Wikipedia. I think she really wants to improve articles on women’s health. However, and with sadness, I have to agree with the above sentiments that it would be better for her to direct her efforts elsewhere.

A few months ago while reading the Breastfeeding article, I came across a passage that contained significant errors. As this is a Featured Article former Featured Article, I wondered if the passage had been recently vandalized, so I searched through the article history to see when it had changed. I discovered that the errors were introduced in this edit by Barbara (she copied the passage from another article that she had written).

The errors in this edit include:

• "About 2 to 3 days (72 to 96 hours) before the birth the breasts begin to produce the fore milk or colostrum.” This happens at mid-pregnancy, not 2-3 days before birth. Also, foremilk is not colostrum. Foremilk is the milk released in the beginning of every feed. Colostrum is the milk produced in the first days of breastfeeding.

• “...This sometimes described as "the milk coming in”.” No. The term “milk coming in” refers to the increase in milk production that occurs after delivery, not before delivery.

• "In about three days to five days the normal and expected milk forms.” The milk that is produced at days 0, 1, and 2, i.e. colostrum, is also perfectly normal and expected. This wording is not harmless — one of the reasons for low breastfeeding rates in some communities is the erroneous belief that colostrum is inadequate or bad food for babies.[109]

• "Engorgement of the breast is a normal development at this time. The breast changes and can become red.” Redness is not a normal feature of engorgement. Redness is a possible sign of infection (mastitis) in the breast.

Barbara's edit summary said that the content she was replacing was “outdated”. OK, the refs in the older content were from 2005, but I can see nothing outdated in the facts in it. It was a well-written, factually accurate passage that she replaced by a passage with a lot of problems.

Yesterday, after being pinged into this thread, I spot-checked Barbara’s other edits to Breastfeeding and found another significantly problematic edit. In this edit, she removed good content that describes the process of latching on, and also removed the important fact that a good latch is needed for the baby to get enough milk. Overall her edit also made the section less clear, in my opinion.

Looking at the pattern that’s emerging, my fear is that Barbara’s past contributions to medical topics will need to be systematically re-verified by other editors who have expertise in these topics and access to her sources. I think we are all in agreement that Wikipedia is short of editors on women’s health topics. If we don’t have enough people volunteering to edit in this area, where are we going to find the people to check and fix Barbara’s work?

Barbara, I hope you will continue to be active in the Wikipedia community. I love your sense of humour and your dedication. Nobody is good at everything, and that’s OK. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot:, just noting that breastfeeding is not a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. It's a former featured article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

I've followed all the links above, I think, and am seeing problems with

• instances of poor prose - unclear expression, typo's, inadvertant repetition of ideas or text, etc. - all of which speak to a failure to double-check work before moving on;
• insufficient care with verifiability - such as attributing claims to sources that do not make those claims;
• some misreading;
• some close paraphrasing;
• some resistance when being challenged or corrected.

If I've missed some important areas of concern in my bullet list, please let me know.

Some of the examples cited in the evidence above are errors that all active medical editors make from time to time, and her talk page demeanour is better than that of several of Wikipedia's most active and appreciated medical editors. That said, however, I think an intervention is needed. I'd like to see Barbara taking more time with her editing, with particular focus on the above points: producing less text, perhaps, but producing much more polished and rigorous work.

What I'd like to do, if she's amenable, and others are agreeable, is actively mentor her: daily critiquing her performance in article- and talk-space. I'll be particularly checking that her sources support her interpretation (as well as a non-specialist can), but will also oversee expression, paraphrasing and talk page performance. We're 12 hours apart so she can ping me at the end of her day and I can review her work while she sleeps and have a critique ready for her when she's back online. I'd like to come back here with a progress report after a month and we can decide then if it's working and whether or not to continue.

If you can think of another, better approach, I'm all ears. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Anthony; I think that is a good offer. I think it is agreed that Barbara has much to offer Wikipedia in general, but that there are some problems with Barbara's editing of medical articles, and with her reluctance to accept advice, so your assistance might hopefully guide her towards improvement in those areas. Could I suggest that until the community sees that improvement that Barbara restricts herself to non-medical articles? Allow Barbara to build up her confidence and skills, and allow the community to regain some trust in her editing. If she continued to edit medical articles, even under your guidance, before she was ready, and she made a mistake, it would likely be picked up quite quickly, and an incident made out of it, which might bring us back here for another discussion. Of course this all depends on Barbara herself. Unless Barbara willingly accepts you as mentor, and listens carefully to you, there will be no improvement. So my feeling is that the mentoring solution needs Barbara's own willingness and commitment, and would need a period of say six months of (non-problematic) non-medical editing to ensure we don't rapidly return to ANI for minor mistakes. SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I agree Barbara should not be editing biology or medicine articles for the time being. Once I'm confident she's ready, I'll ask her to begin editing medical content in user- or draft-space and, only when I'm confident she's mastered the bullet-list issues in that very difficult and complex topic, I'll propose a lifting of the restriction here. I'd rather not impose an arbitrary time limit, and promise not to waste the community's time by bringing her back here prematurely. It's just that, if she's clearly mastered those bullet points, above, in a shorter timeframe than 6 months, arbitrarily extending it to the 6 months would seem punitive to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I agree. I also think that this should be dependent on Barbara herself, and that it would be better if we are not imposing formal limitations or conditions on her. This should be entirely at her choice, and on the understanding that this is being done to enable us to assist her in editing Wikipedia without stress and conflict so that we can continue benefiting from her enthusiasm and hard work. SilkTork (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just rang Barbara. She's got a lot on this morning but will respond later today or this evening. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should add she reached out to me for help with her work, yesterday, specifically citation style. I was amenable to this.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposed restrictions on my editing, and actually consider them valid and believe it or not I thank everyone for taking the time to respond. Some of this was hard to hear, admittedly. If it is okay, I would like to continue working on microbiology articles. There are gaps that I found that I can fill in with little 'trouble' or controversy.The only other thing I would like to do is have the opportunity to go back and correct the errors that where described in this ANI discussion. If I can do this, I will be able to clean up my 'messes' and make the content more accurate. I started doing this about two days ago, anyway and I am eager to keep doing it. I will add the phrase in my edit summary: "corrected previous error" and if Anthony doesn't think it was valid, it can be reverted by him (or anyone, really). Thank you to Michael Goodyear for helping with referencing. Thank you to Anthony for taking on this burden (!!) (While looking for references, I deleted this piece of vandalism in a medical article, this was not meant to 'test' my restrictions but is reflexive on my part. apologies) Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 18:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole, per what SandyGeorgia, Clayoquot and I have stated above, there is also an issue of misunderstanding WP:MEDDATE (or viewing it differently) and neglecting WP:Preserve. In the collapse box, I already linked to this example. Here is an example of me trying to explain WP:MEDDATE. Similar about WP:MEDDATE was stated to an editor during the Cervix GA review. Anatomy or other medical material being supported by sources older than five years, or even significantly older than five years, does not mean that the material is outdated.

Thanks for taking this on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Flyer. I shall discuss MEDDATE and PRESERVE with Barbara until I'm comfortable she's got it, and until I see PRESERVE routinely demonstrated in non-med topics. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more data points

I have held off from commenting thus far, to ensure that the original semi-canvassing ping to me was well balanced by pinging others, and it has been. The problem of Barbara is a hard one. She has apparently been a very productive contributor to the translation task force. I cannot speak to how good her edits have been in Creole, but I have seen her praised for her work there. And she seems in some ways to be well-intentioned. She also has an ugly side, and when she lets that take her, she does disruptive and POINTy things.

• Obstinate, sometimes vindictive behavior This is the most troubling behavioral thing. Her original conflict with Flyer back in 2015 came from Barbara editing in an anti-feminist and pro-men's rights fashion, and led Barbara to start HOUNDING Flyer and led Barbara give barnstars to editors who were wishing nasty things on Flyer - people who come here to promote men's rights or denigrate women or write creepy stuff about sex. She got a 6 month block that was later reduced. (see this ANI and this one. That behavior was just ugly as hell, and Barbara never acknowledged it. She was unblocked only because she promised to steer clear of Flyer in certain ways and for a limited time per these conditions); she never acknowledged following or the ugly barnstarring. (unblock request, discussion, and unblock)

This is the kind of ugly behavior that has cropped up from time to time. I tried to let Barbara know that this was not OK, and that led to her filing this ANI asking for an IBAN with me. Which got no traction. If you look at the diffs that she provided (!) you will see the kind of behaviors in which she was engaging, that I was trying to warn her away from. This sort of behavior has continued. We had an academic spam article created at Culinary coaching which we deleted via an AfD. Barbara decided this was a "women's issues" thing (which is pretty sexist but whatever) and she tried like crazy to save it as admins can see from the history of that page, using poor quality refs and academic spam refs. When she realized that the AfD remained solidly against her, she went and created Sexism in medicine (creating diff - this was very clear in her contribs from that time, but the diffs at "Culinary coaching" are gone due its being deleted, so it is not clear now to non-admins). Sexism in medicine is a fine article to have btw, but its creation was POINTY and...bizarre as there is nothing particularly "women's issues" about teaching people to cook food that is good for them. This sort of thing.

Barbara and I got into a conflict at Ketorolac in March 2017 where she was trying to force in content that violated WP:NOTHOWTO, which MEDMOS also specifically warns against. She was just not hearing it at the talk page, and I ended up filing at EWN case. Her response to the whole thing, btw, was ~apparently~ this, including the image posted here. This is the kind of thing I mean above about behavior. That is just ...twisted and actually disdainful. Kind of funny, yes. But disdainful.

Kind of related to that disdainful humor thing, see this mockery of the DS notice that she created in December 2016 after I gave her a real one. Please see the comments from guy just below the mock-DS notice.

(and this, User:SandyGeorgia, is what my remark at your talk page was about - Barbara is attracted to behavior like your hollering bias on the prostate stuff as "harming men" -- it brings out the worst in her and she encourages people in bad ways, like when she barnstarred Flyers' hounders).

• Content and sourcing In terms of content, this is the most troubling thing. For some reason, Barbara has refused to engage with MEDRS (this is getting better but is not there yet), and keeps adding content about health based on non-MEDRS sources. The earliest direct discussion I could find with her about this was back in the summer of 2015, in this section and the one below it, where Doc James was trying to teach her. I had a clash with her on some microbiome stuff that i posted about here in June 2016. She claims it is "confusing" but after two years of people trying to teach her, this is either simply obstinate or incompetence. That is a blunt thing to say, I know.
  • See Pain management in children as it stood when she built it up in August 2017. One of the most cited sources is this page from Stanford. We have said over and over that university/hospital websites are not OK per MEDRS. But there it is cited 9 times. A ref from 1989, another from 1998, 2 refs from 2001, others from 2003, 2004, 2007... this is just hard to watch - new articles being built up with already-outdated sources.

See this mess from the PTSD article in October 2017, where Barbara was edit warring in content based on press releases and a university/hospital website.

• COPYVIO - others have mentioned this, and this continues. this diff from 2 weeks ago, is a copy/paste from here, with the original inline citations left in place. That was at one of the prostate articles, which she ran right on over to in response to SandyGeorgia.

• Other stuff. Last fall Barbara was working on miscarriage-related topics and created Miscarriage and grief and Miscarriage and mental illness (which remain a bit of a mess in relation to each other, and with respect to each one's sourcing, content, and structure) and in the course of that, was really working the line that abortion (induced miscarriage) causes PTSD, which is straight up anti-abortion activist crap, which in light of her original mens rights activism/anti-feminism editing when she first got here, was disturbing. I opened a section about the sourcing she was using at WT:MED here which Barbara brought up again here. (that was part of the conflict at PTSD I mentioned above, as she wanted add it there as well)

Old issue now not continuing, but the traces remain: For a while she was adding a tag to refs that she got through her relationship with Pitt, as in this diff, where she was including "Access provided by the University of Pittsburgh" to citations she added. This was very inappropriate in my view (relevant to her initial access, but not to anyone else's subsequently, and promotional for Pitt). She stopped doing it but there are still about 70 pages with that tag still present.

She does have a sense of humor which I am sure many people appreciate, like the "revert me why" thing above. She made an article about Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism (which was inappropriate humor in mainspace and was renamed and very much revised after an AfD... but was funny!) and she has been contributing humor to Signpost for a while now. But that humor can be ugly/disdainful and misplaced.

This is a hard thing. She can be a good contributor, but there is this obstinate and even nasty side of her as well. I see above the proposal to mentor, and I hope that goes well. To be honest when her name comes up on my watch list I groan, as the content is likely to be badly sourced and not accurately summarizing the sources, and I would have to deal with the obstinate stuff trying to get it fixed. Most times I just ignore it as I try to avoid her. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC) (tweaked a bit Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, @Jytdog:, for the context; it is helpful to be made aware of this, and if it is gender-based activism bologna, I am sorry I added to and furthered that behavior with my concern about a men's health topic that is affecting my life right now.

So, I now have three new concerns:

• Creole translation. Since I speak fluent Spanish and often check DYKs, GAs and FAs for translation, I know that translation is almost always problematic even in the best of circumstances, as well as being a frequent source of copyvio. DYKs, GAs and FAs are often sailing through until I come in and can read the sources, and say ... whoa, there! Not in the sources, not what the sources say, not a reliable source, or copyvio via direct translation. So, here we have an editor who has already demonstrated weak knowledge of copyvio and close paraphrasing, along with a problem in competency in interpreting sources, along with difficulty in understanding the medical concepts she is writing about, and YET we have her translating medical content to a language that perhaps no one else is fluent in or can double-check? If we are concerned about her work in English, we should be triply concerned about having her translating medical content then. I believe she should not be translating. If we have bad editing, why should we allow bad editing in a language few can check? (This is a problem throughout translations on Wikipedia, and why I am against the headlong rush into it ... we have poor medical content across the English project, and we are going to use the precious few resources we have to spread our poor content to other languages, making it possibly even poorer in the process? <scratching my head>
• Jytdog said: "She was unblocked only because she promised to steer clear of Flyer; she never acknowledged following or the ugly barnstarring. (unblock request, discussion, and unblock)". (emphasis mine) That is a long discussion; could one of you (Flyer or Jytdog) point out a specific diff where she "promised to steer clear of Flyer"? Because if we have that, and Barbara has indeed already gone back on that promise in her interaction with Flyer in this ANI, we have a good indication already that mentoring is not going to work. This is reading more and more like Mattisse Mentoring 101, and by allowing the Mattisse situation to go on for years, we just got more and more conflict, taking more and more time from good-faith editors who only wanted to help. If she has already broken a promise, we should see the diff (if possible), and call the game now.
• COPYVIO. We see a DIDNTHEARTHAT problem with understanding of copyright. It seems that various editors have told Barbara over and over what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis copyright, yet she indicates above that she still thinks it's OK to just plop public domain text into articles. Again, this is sounding too familiar.

Seeing the whole picture now from multiple editors, I am quite concerned we are heading down the same path that did not work with Mattisse. We did it there for the same reason here-- we wanted to retain the value of sometimes good edits. It didn't work. Again, though, I defer to @SilkTork:-- he was the one who did the hard mentoring work. I'm remembering we also clobbered @Deathphoenix: by putting him into a difficult mentoring situation in 2007. If it is still decided to go with mentoring, much tighter parameters could be called for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SandyGeorgia the unblock conditions were more nuanced than what I wrote above, sorry. (have redacted). The unblock conditions were here and expired Dec 2015, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, struck my second point, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban / IBAN

The unblock conditions are at User_talk:Bfpage/guidelines, and according to the conditions, they expired "December 1st, 2015 unless someone seeks and reaches community consensus that they are still needed". The conditions were all to do with Barbara's interactions with Flyer and Jytdog, and were not to do with her general editing competence. Despite being blocked for hounding and agreeing to those conditions, Barbara's unblock request was : "I would like to request that I be unblocked. I am not hounding anyone and I am only trying to improve the encyclopedia. You may want to consider the possibility that the other editor may be mistaken and that the perception of being hounded may not be valid." That past history, and the ongoing problems that Jytdog points out, make for sobering reading.

My personal feeling while noting Barbara's behaviour at the Vagina article, and the wording of her email to me declining my offer to assist her on editing non-medical articles, is that she had an issue with Flyer. Her bizarre pointy editing on that article, and her apparent crusade to personally improve sexuality articles on Wikipedia (ie - replace Flyer's content with her own), coupled with what Jytdog has just produced for us, which shows that this is an issue which appears to stretch back years, indicates that this is a situation we need to address more seriously than to leave it to Barbara's own good will and common sense, which is what I hoped we could do. Part of the problem is that Barbara is very reluctant to see that she is causing a problem.

In summary, I think everyone agrees that Barbara has something of value to contribute to Wikipedia, and everyone agrees that her editing of medical articles is problematic, and we have a history going back to 2015 of her problematic interactions with Flyer who is a known good contributor to medical articles. As Barbara is causing problems in medical articles, and is displaying some of the same behaviours in her interactions with Flyer that caused her to be banned in 2015, I think - reluctantly - we do need to impose a formal topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles. This would not restrict her from editing elsewhere on Wikipedia, nor would it significantly interfere with Anthonyhcole's mentoring, except in that when Anthony felt Barbara was ready to return to editing medical articles, there would need to be a community agreement to do so, and to undo the topic ban. SilkTork (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a formal topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles, and also a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22, a highly productive editor that Barbara seems obsessed with. I have been observing Barbara's behavior with concern for several years, and that plus the evidence presented above makes it clear to me that her problematic behavior needs to be restrained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles, and a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22. Some of the articles concerned are on my watchlist and I have seen some of the never-ending good-faith-but-not-quite-right contributions. It has to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to read deeper into the background. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will defer to those who will or have taken on the mentoring burden (SilkTork and Anthonyhcole), with two caveats:

• How will "medical articles" be defined?
• I should disclose that I am a volunteer Spanish interpreter in a medical clinic, so I have to be up on the ethics and standards. I am concerned about the translation issue I mentioned above,[110] and would prefer to see the ban, if there is one, extended to translating. If we have someone we do not allow to edit medical articles in English, neither should they be translating them to another language. Good judgment, nuance, and knowing when to stop and explain an interpreting/translating bump to both parties present (patient, doctor) are of critical importance when interpreting. I am getting the picture that Barbara may not recognize the limits of her own medical knowledge enough to know when she needs to consult a medical professional before assigning a word in another language. It is not often straightforward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment about translation and I share not only your concern about Barbara's translation work - but also your attitude toward the general idea that we should foist translations of English Wikipedia medical articles on other language encyclopedias. We both know how bad Wikipedia medical articles can be.

I like and respect Barbara very muuch, and I think if she can slow down and apply rigor, she'll be a fine editor.

As for the anti-feminist and pro-life positions (if, indeed, these are her positions), I have no problem with those. She's entitled to her views.

The idea that she is stalking Flyer22 is concerning. It's that that I want to read into. Could someone please link me to the beginning of the discord between Bfpage and Flyer? Barbara, ring me any time, and chime in here if you want to. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the ANIs linked in the very first line of this whole thread where Flyer laid out the background very clearly. I linked to them near the top of my post as well. That level of non-reading is disturbing, as is your comment about views. Yes everybody has views - the problem is that Barbara has been pushing them into articles and this is not OK for anybody to do. And the key behavioral issue is not something that needs "slowing down" as much as it needs a fundamental change in orientation to others; her obstinacy (refusing to listen to others and even derisively dismissing them) has kept her from engaging with the basic guidelines like MEDRS and MEDMOS and has made conflicts over specific content a time sink. That is unfortunately a character thing (like bluntness is a character thing for me) that will be very hard to mentor away. Yes "slowing down" would help but a fundamental turn needs to take place. I am, bluntly, concerned about you mentoring her now. How can you mentor to address what you will not see, even after this long thread? (that is not a rhetorical question) Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed all the links above, I think. I want to know whether there were any instances of discord between Bfpage and Flyer22, prior to this ANI thread, that did not bubble up onto a noticeboard.

As for Barbara's views, they, in themselves, are not the issue. The issue is whether her views cloud her ability to edit neutrally. I'm still reading, trying to get a bigger picture of her editing history beyond the links provided above. It seems to me, though, that some obvious problems are insufficient rigor generally, insufficient committment to core policies and guidelines, and a tendency toward snark.

It would help matters enormously if you would refrain from snark yourself and not bring false evidence to this discussion. The latter undermines my confidence in anything you say here and the former undermines my respect for you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that you were looking for stuff prior to the first ANI. That was not at all clear from your post. When Flyer comes to ANI it tends to be very thorough, and her first ANI starts out with "I first addressed Bfpage about WP:Harassment..." and that includes links from 20 Feb 2015. Here is the interaction analyzer for the period from 1 Dec 2014 to 8 March 2015 when Flyer filed that ANI. Looks to me like they first clashed at Sexism - see this part of its history on 19 Feb, the day before Flyer gave Barbara the harassment warning.

I am sorry you found my note snarky; i was reading your post (and others in this thread) at their face value. You had no where addressed the "dark side" - the hounding and the surface-friendly-but-actually-ugly grooming of the "enemies of my enemy" which was really bad, since Flyer deals with so many nasty characters... and led to the 6 month block. If you word search both ANIs for "barnstar" (they are here: first one and 2nd one) you will see diffs of that behavior.

Barbara has something like a rebel streak that can be dark sometimes like with the grooming; sometimes it comes out as a delayed derisive gesture; quite often she says something nice and then does something different that she wanted to do anyway; more rarely she is directly confrontational. "Snark" is not really the word for that passel of stuff, which is going to be your biggest challenge, behavior wise, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For clarity, I am not making a offer to mentor Barbara. I suggested to her in an email that because there was stress and tension involved in her editing the Vagina article, I would be prepared to work with her to bring some non-medical articles she had created to GA level, in order to assist her to voluntarily move away from the Vagina article. I am keeping that offer open.
• Though a medical topic ban should be enough, I support a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22 in order to reduce the possibility of friction down the line if Barbara decides to follow Flyer into non-medical areas.
• If Barbara is doing poor translation for other projects, that is beyond our scope to remedy here on the English Wikipedia as we have no jurisdiction on other projects. A discussion would need to be set up on each of the projects for which she is doing the translation, or a global ban set up on WikiMedia. Approaching those projects for which she is doing translation would seem to be the best approach at this stage, and they would be able to investigate themselves. I doubt if a global ban would be acceptable without first consulting with the other projects involved and establishing that there is a problem. SilkTork (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles, and a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22. IMO Barbara's edits can be a WP editor's worst nightmare. It's not easy to say that because criticism of another editor does not come easy to most of us. But in this case where we must weigh the hundreds of hours that Flyer and others have spent in correcting Barbara's edits, I could not be more sure that she should no longer be editing medical articles. Barbara's edits to articles related to sexuality have been especially problematic; for example she has said that she has a COI when it comes to rape and yet she has gone right ahead and edited the most delicate aspects of rape, for example deleting a section relating to the (rare) victim's experience of pleasure, calling it "nauseating" in her edit summary[111]. What this suggests to me is that perhaps Barbara's WP editing of medical articles may improve with mentoring but her COI regarding sexuality should bar her from editing in these areas. Gandydancer (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban on medical articles, broadly construed, and a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22 Reborn. The troubling behavior and substandard edits I've seen were apparently only the tip of the iceberg. As more information continues to come to light, it seems as if a considerable amount of checking will need to be done on her contributions. Perhaps knowing that her edits will be more closely scrutinized will lead her to slow down and be careful and also to rethink the way she interacts with some of her fellow editors. I wish her the best. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles as there's a long history of problems from her in that subject area. I've experienced it more than once in the past.

and

• Object to a one-way interaction ban. Never liked the idea as it's unfair - interaction issues between editors are rarely so one-sided that they would merit such a lopsided sanction. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a topic ban from medical articles and a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22. Flyer22 has suffered enough, and kept her cool amazingly well. W.r.t. competence, of the evidence presented above, the part that I find most persuasive was presented by Barbara herself, in which she defended "Vaginal cancers... originate from vaginal epithelium" as being a decent summary of sources that say most vaginal cancers originate from the vaginal epithelium. This shows that after slowing down and being asked to re-scrutinize her work, she still believes her summary is OK. So I doubt that the technical errors we've been seeing are simply the result of working too fast or prioritizing quantity over quality. In response to Barbara's question regarding whether we think it is OK for her to edit microbiology articles, I would also ask her to voluntarily refrain from further editing in technical areas such as microbiology unless the edit is really a no-brainer. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's late here and I haven't read this carefully enough to formally support a TBAN, but it sure sounds like the right idea from a distance. Why is she so determined to edit medical articles? I don't like how freaky the custodians of those articles sometimes get, but it's part of how things de facto work here. Can't she do something else for a while? I'm not bothered by occasional crappy prose and typos in articles but it's best that they be in places where they can't actually harm people. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a formal topic ban and a 1-way i-ban. There have been far more than enough opportunities for improvement and yet we have seen none. Natureium (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Bring this issue to ArbCom, and let them decide what to do. KMF (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would only take such a case if the community was unable to handle the matter at noticeboards such as this one, KATMAKROFAN. It looks to me like the community is handling it just fine right here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since December, I have sent 22 messages to this editor. 22 messages means a lot of my time and effort trying to raise concerns that this editor is creating multiple articles which are not referenced properly, including BLPs. I have repeatedly pointed out the guidelines on referencing and directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN. I have had responses to 2 out of my 22 messages, both adding up to that they don't have time for 'blabla'. I have also tried to reach out to them by asking Earl Andrew to join the conversation, which they did, but Alexey continues to edit but not respond to the messages. Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours to drive the point home and given a rocket — I told 'em blabla is essential on a collaborative project. Looking at their editing pattern, they may unfortunately miss the block altogether, but I didn't feel I could justify making it longer. Bishonen | talk 04:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Bishonen, I think that's the right decision. Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Family International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings. I was advised to report to this page by other editors. I'm a financially contributing Wikipedia user. I recently had edits I had made on a page Rolled back. This was done by User:L293D. As I understand it, and as an editor named "Amory" explained directly to L293D here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TonyBallioni), Rollback is to be used only in cases of Vandalism. If you check the diff: [112] in the right-hand column, I think you'll see that it was indeed a Rollback, and no explanation is given. Furthermore, you can see that my edits were sincere, considered, well-written, added facts (with citation) and were explained as clearly as possible within the 1000-character limit. If someone does not agree with my edits, they can revert with an explanation. It's too late now, the damage is done. It puts me in a bad light, and another editor is perceiving it that way. But if this does not qualify as vandalism, then would you please at least instruct L293D to wield his newly found authority much more carefully & maturely. This represented much time on my part, and seeing the power of someone to dismiss information as "vandalism" in a cursory manner, without discussion, and leading to flagging & further complications, is not at all encouraging for further contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for reading. (NOTE: I have sent a copy of this complaint to L293D, as required.) JohnnyJohnnyG (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnnyJohnnyG: There is no record in your history of your having notified L293D of anything. See the instructions at the top of this page for the proper way to do so. General Ization ^Talk 16:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny, you are new but you are already treading on very thin ice because of your conduct. Three experienced users have reverted your edits, not just the one you mention. Vandalism isn't the only reason for reverting another user's edits, and given the kind of edits you've been making - removing negative material from the article - it's not surprising that editors reverted. This is a very controversial article, and glancing at it I can see that some of the existing material should probably be toned down to be more neutral and faithful to the cited sources. That said, your edits are unacceptable. I suggest you stick to the article Talk page and argue why your edits are appropriate. During that discussion, you should not touch the article unless there is a clear consensus in your favor or partly in your favor. Otherwise, you will probably be blocked for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E/C Well JohnnyJohnny, you made some poor edits using poor sources and were reverted by more than one editor. nothing will happen to anybody here, except perhaps some admonishments. Personally I'd only admonish you, but it's probably due to inexperience. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is also worth noting that one's financial contributions to wikipedia, or lack thereof, do not matter one whit in disputes such as these. One's edits are judged on their own merits; Wikipedia is not "pay to win". Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnnyJohnnyG: note that if you are sure that I made a mistake (I make some from time to time) every editor has the right to press the "undo" link and undo the previous edit. Rollback is just a permission to revert several edits in a row if they are by the same person. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback should never be used to revert a good faith edit though. It is for removal of vandalism, removal of your own edits, or to remove widespread issues with an appropriate explanation. Sperril (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: please clarify that you understand the mentioned limitations on your use of the rollback tool. MPS1992 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what rollback is to be used for. I was pointing out that if I mistook their edit for vandalism and that it was not, they could always undo my edit. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 142.68.172.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Continued personal attacks on talk page; obviously not here to contribute. Also tripped some private filters that are disallowed. Please revoke and extend block. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked, but it's probably not necessary to extend the block. It's entirely possible they're on a different IP address already, like they claimed. If so, a range block is the answer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they are still there... Looking at their contributions, it does not look like an IP shared among multiple individuals, or even a dynamic range. I have hardblocked for a month before seeing this thread, but maybe this is a bit too much? -- Luk ^talk 13:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite me using WP:AIV to block IP addresses in the past for this in the past, I was referred here. So, the IP address 38.27.128.203 has been giving me a headache the last few days. They have been making edits to the Cincinnati Bengals roster template and newly acquired Cordy Glenn. While the edits on Cordy Glenn have stopped despite my warning on their talkpage, the edits on the template have not. They have repeatedly added a number for Cordy Glenn, despite him not having a number yet per the teams website their Twitter account (sometimes numbers are announced on social media) or even Cordy Glenn's twitter account. Meaning, no reliable source exists giving him a number. There's a couple other players they are doing it to as well. I honestly just want them blocked for a day or two since they are not heeding my warnings.--Rockchalk717 19:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockchalk717: - I've semi protected the template for a month. If there are any articles which would benefit, just shout. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Same issue from this editor at Template:New England Patriots roster ‎ and Brandon Bell (American football). We go through this every year, I don't understand what's behind people filling in made-up numbers (is there some advantage to a fantasy game in selecting published numbers?). It's evidently not a single person, it's geographically widespread. About the only thing I could suggest would be semi-protecting all the NFL roster templates until training camps start (July 16). Tarl N. (discuss) 20:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that. I appreciate it!--Rockchalk717 22:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.: - I didn't get that ping for some reason. Have semi'd the template for a month. Might be worth starting a discussion at WP level about having these (and similar) templates permanently semi-protected if this is an annual issue. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the template should have been semi-protected. It has received a lot of edits by IPs, and most of them don't seem to be disruptive. If User:38.27.128.203 has been told several times that their edits are incorrect, but persists in making those edits, then that IP might need to be blocked, but I don't think semi-protecting the pages is the right solution. Calathan (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent many messages to this editor about creating incomplete and unreferenced articles like List of 1981–82 NBA season transactions, a list with no entries and no clear sources, just external links - there are many like these. I have been contacting the editor for months, but they continue to edit but not respond to my messages (see User talk:Kev519#Sources and communication). I have directed them towards WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required, but they won't talk. In 18 months of editing, they have responded to no one and other editors have also raised concerns.

They have been at ANI before in Aug 2017, but I can't find the record. They have also been investigated and found to be using a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kev519/Archive. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to make the tables of other transactions because it is complicated. (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The August 2017 ANI. Search for it because the braces make it difficult for me to get it to jump to the thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been adding empty tables and other similar edits to "XXXX in professional wrestling" year articles as well. He has been told to stop multiple times yet continues to add this unhelp information. - Galatz^Talk 13:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly tried to communicate with this editor, as have others, but in over two years of editing they have ignored all messages. I have been mainly trying to communicate with them about creating unreferenced blps, with just an external link to imdb, which is an unreliable source. I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN. They continue to edit, but not respond to my messages or address the issues. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is continuing to edit but not comment here. Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Alan Dershowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parttime711employee (talk · contribs)

New user Parttime711employee's third edit was to the article on Dershowitz—an article whose edit summary states it's under Arbitration Enforcement restrictions barring edits by users with fewer than 500 edits and less than 30 days experience. I restored the text, which the other user subsequently removed. This also appears to be a violation of the AE restrictions on the edit summary.

I have two concerns:

1. Is there a technical issue with the protection at Alan Dershowitz, where the page should be protected against edits by users who don't meet the 500/30 criteria?
2. Can an uninvolved editor review the situation, revert if appropriate, and take such actions or issue such guidance as are needed with this new editor?

Thank you for assistance and clarification with this. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: No admin actually applied ECP to the article. I have now and logged it. The new editor is now aware of 500/30 and discretionary sanctions so it's up to them to follow the restriction, even on articles that aren't on ECP yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can Parttime711employee be blocked to stop further disruption and send a clear message that personal attacks and edit warring are not a way to begin your career here? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has been discussed user's talk page.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I'm not convinced they are beginning their career. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

For my part I'm not convinced you are not making this personal. But everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, and given your decided lack of evidence in support your 'opinion', I acknowledge that from time to time we all entitled to a harmless opinion about one another; that is, since you opened that door with yours. Thank you.Parttime711employee (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the entire Dershowitz page under ECP? If anything, edits under ARBCOM should be restricted, but we shouldn't be in the business of locking up pages because a section or two is potentially an issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ARBPIA has always taken a very broad interpretation of what falls into these restrictions. Even a weak connection, like you seem to feel this is, is still under WP:ARBPIA restrictions. - Galatz^Talk 18:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is usually kept on an edit level, not necessarily on the article. The goal should be to have as few as possible locked articles. If Dershowitz is a problem for ARBCOM, then we can proceed and lock it down, but one person editing doesn't usually mean there is a problem. And if you look at the edit in question, it has nothing to do with the IP Conflict. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to get Arbcom to change one word of the remedy ("feasible" to optimal") here to allow for these types of situations but didn't get anywhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At cheddar man, scroll through the page history, it looks like some IPs, new and established editors are having some sort of revert fest parallel to a discussion on the TP. I am in rush so can't notify the proper editors, sorry. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC) edited grammar spelling L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Add Cheddar Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to make checking on this a bit easier. MarnetteD|Talk 23:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bit of irony for you: according to the article, Cheddar Man was lactose intolerant! EEng 00:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested semi-protection at RFPP. Perhaps I should have requested full protection, but I'm sure an admin can figure it out. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They all were back then.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, sorry for the lack of detail in my OP. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced content at WJTV and 20th Century Fox Television. [113] [114] [115] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And they backed off right after you used this as a bludgeon (IP had only been given an unusually strong 3im warning rather than an explanation for reversion like I did, or a lesser automated template). ANI is for serious issues of vandalism, not issues about content. Just revert, warn and escalate from there. ANI isn't for 'things rejected at AIV as unactionable'. Nate • (chatter) 17:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed a series of edits coming from SOGIN's network promoting SOGIN's CEO and his activities in enigmatography and art. I found at least three SPAs which seems to be related to this activity: Artlatinlover, Escherknot and Johnthomas28. Some local checkusering may be interesting. Apart from SOGIN and Desiata the promotional activity focuses around pptArt, Corporate Art Awards, Hebdomada Aenigmatum , Onomata Kechiasmena and Bojano's "Associazione Culturale Leonardo". --Vituzzu (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per heading.

O1lI0 reverted this edit with the summary of "Reverting vandalism or test edit", and placed a template warning on the IP editors talk page.

I maintain that both the edit was in good faith - as the edit summary stated it "Removed outdated statistic from 12 years ago" and so there was no need for the template issued, and I removed it from the talk page. O1lI0 disagreed and reinstated the template with the summary of "I said There are other better ways to change the data, like updating." - although I can find no evidence that he did this, and mentioned it to him on his talk page, which he subsequently removed with the summary of "See Re in your talk page." He then left a message on my talk page RE which doesn't really explain anything, apart from it seems to support that he still considers the original edit to be vandalism, or a test edit.

So, the question I'm asking is - was the removal of 12 year old information, accompanied by an edit summary that said exactly what it did, vandalism (or a test edit) and did it warrant the warning issued?

I've also informed Gilliam, because although not involved directly, it was their comment that made me look at the article in question. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to add a note, I will say that the expired information can be treated as history and does not need to be deleted. What is needed is an update. When it is not necessary to deletie expired information is a kind of test edit in my knowledge.O1lI0 (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a test edit. It was clearly an intentional edit that accomplished the desired effect. It would have been been more appropriate to revert the edit and say, as you have here the expired information can be treated as history and does not need to be deleted. What is needed is an update. GMG^talk 16:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I feel there are serious competence issues with O1lI0. After reading their communication attempt with Chaheel Riens, I glanced at their edits and found this removal of a reliable source from the Goertek article, along with removal of text with an edit summary of removal of spam, for a company that is on Forbes Top 50 Asian companies list, and is regarded as a leading Chinese electronics company. And a block threat to User:Le Petit Chat based on an imagined editing as an IP with no supporting evidence. In fact that user's talk page is full of threats from O1lI0, including this warning for restoring a valid cite that O1lI0 had removed. SilkTork (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As a new French user, I didn't know how to solve this problem. I had chosen to ignore User:O1lI0 warnings, since they were at least stupid (such as the accusation of using IP adresses I had no link with). May I remove O1lI0's threats from my userpage now ? -Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Petit Chat, you may remove virtually anything from your own userpage. GMG^talk 19:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• O1lI0, I suppose I'll say this much, in the hopes that you are amenable to friendly advice, and that maybe this can be resolved in a way that doesn't need to escalate further. I've done a little editing in languages I don't speak fluently (or at all), and it's possible to do so and be productive, but when you do, you need to proceed very carefully. For example, I don't undo anyone who reverts me on a non-English project, even if I feel pretty sure they were wrong, and my edit was an improvement. When someone reverts you, or tries to correct you, its more likely that you've misunderstood some nuance, and that you should listen to their advice, because it's difficult to understand nuance when you're not speaking your native tongue.

If you have a disagreement, instead of arguing, it's better to admit they might be right, and if needed, ask for a second opinion. If you'd like, you can ping me in these instances and I'll be happy to help. The examples provided by User:SilkTork are problematic, and they're a trend we need to fix. You especially need to be careful of issuing warnings, because these can drive new editors away, and for long-time editors, can make things much worse, in a way that isn't necessary. Are you open to this guidance going forward? GMG^talk 00:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing O1lI0's contributions going back a bit further I've just issued the user a competence warning against reverting other editors and issuing inappropriate threats. SilkTork (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[116] and [117] feel more like WP:REVENGE than WP:INCOMPETENT for me since he suspected User:Le Petit Chat to be an IP user that he is in conflict with. (inb4 this IP address gets accused)--130.102.13.50 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the vibe here seems to be that while there was nothing wrong with the reversion, per se, the subject of the reversion wasn't vandalism or a test edit, ergo the warning template was not applicable. I'm removing it again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, whether the warning stays or goes it probably a moot point by now. The IP is registered to AT&T, and mobile IPs change frequently, meaning if the person hasn't seen it by now, they likely never will. The real issue with the warning is that we don't want to confuse new editors by barking at them for what they believed was a good faith edit, when we should be explaining whatever the problem was so they can fix it. GMG^talk 13:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True - but the editor who applied the warning template is still around and editing; he will see that as per the above discussion mistakes get corrected. Let's not lose sight of the fact that O1lI0 made no effort to explain what the problem was in their own eyes either - apart from their opinion that it was vandalism. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• O1lI0 is a frequent editor on Chinese wikipedia [118]. At a glance, his/her Chinese is much better than his/her command of English (at any rate, vastly better than my Chinese). Of course, we don't want to discourage people from editing enwiki just because their English is less than flawless, but perhaps it explains the communication difficulties. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from what you have mentioned above, I would also like to add that O1lI0 has been frequently abusing templates like {{expand language}} when the corresponding articles are really no better than the English ones. --117.136.36.250 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A list of bogus warnings by Gooseflesh12 is here. I believe they abused rollbacker with these edits [119][120][121]. They edit warred with rollbacker to retain BLP violation without discussion per WP:ONUS to retain such information. They threatened blocks for vandalism even after being informed it was a BLP violation[122]. Pleas remove rollbacker rights for this editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:293f:e377:8c63:4c78 (talk)

There are multiple issues here. I'm not sure why that specific paragraph is supposed to be a BLP violation while the rest of the section is OK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing more is fine, restoring with rollbacker is not. Nor are the frivolous warnings. WP:ONUS is clear. If there are multiple issues, "vandalism" and "rollbacker" should not be claimed or used. I don't claim to be right, but engaging through rollbacker and threats of blocks for vandalism is clear abuse.

<<ec>>As it removed sourced content, it was probably acceptable to rollback. The not recognizing of a good faith edit during discussion is a bit trigger happy. Frankly I think removal needs discussion as the whole tawdry mess seems adequately cited.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations concern someone who died in 2001. How could this be a 'BLP violation'? 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:57D:CE40:7616:9F1 (talk)

Mackenzie_Phillips died!? --Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody seems to have told her :) On a serious note, it might be sourced material—but it's sourced to Oprah—is that really an RS?! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 07:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. There was an Oprah interview. IMHO, that whole personal life section could go-- salacious scandal sheet material given too much weight here, but I guess I'm going of topic.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine trying to remove more when a rollbacker edit wars to try and keep a 4th person account (daughter of some guy that thought it was true and told said daughter). Twice removed "witnesses" aren't useful as sources. My dad thought O.J was guilty, too, but neither his account, nor my statement of his account is in the article. --2600:8800:1300:16E:293F:E377:8C63:4C78 (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are a vast distance from being reliable: they're entertainment news reports, not secondary sources published by experts in the field. There's a reason we generally prohibit primary sources in biographies of living people. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gooseflesh12 has a label on their userpage saying "Because of school, Gooseflesh12 will not be very active on weekdays, but should be back editing enthusiastically on weekends (except when doing homework or on vacation)." User:Gilliam granted the tool that has caused problems when used by a schoolchild in this instance, and may be able to offer an opinion on whether the tool should be retained, especially given that Gooseflesh12 has not responded here. MPS1992 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being in school, in American parlance, does not necessarily mean one is a child. Here, even graduate students can be referred to as being "In school", and the average age of such students trends towards the mid to late twenties. Icarosaurvus (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His previous username, changed in the last week, is "Yexstorm2001." Even millenial math puts him at 16-17.

And the request stems from his edit warring to retain poorly sourced information in a BLP, using rollbacker to accomplish it as well as the misuse of warnings to make accusations of vandalism. Not once, but 3 times. Regardless of age, rollbacker is not working out for him.

Gilliam has made hundreds of edits since this ANI and notice to him was published. They don't appear to be opposed to removing the rollbacker bit or interested in defending its retention. 2600:8800:1300:16E:51A2:8569:F6FF:E0A4 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to get a user to understand the need to provide reliable sources to an article, but no matter what I say he insists on expressing what looks like a clear opinion and refuses to understand the need to be neutral and consider neutral observers. His behaviour appears bordering on childish if I may be so bold to suggest, and I do not believe he is here to contribute to Wikipedia, or at least understands the need. Please observe these edits on his talk page regarding the issue at hand; [123], [124], [125], [126], [127] & [128]. 103.228.188.122 (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And after issuing the notice on his page and warning him he just exploded in a fit of uncivil conduct; [129] 103.228.188.122 (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context: Melbourne City Wrestling. I considered starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/“Mr Juicy” Gino Gambino (second nomitation) to re-confirm Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/“Mr Juicy” Gino Gambino as it was a non-admin closure of an articles for deletion discussion. On further reflection, I thought that would have been rather pointy of me. The AfD was without any doubt correctly closed, and thank you indeed L3X1. I anticipate that LosIngorbernablesDeJapon - a user who commenced editing February 2018 - may either run out of puff and disappear or be WP:INDEF'd even as I write this here. Melbourne City Article Writer aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours. IP, it would have helped if you had provided examples to LosIngorbernablesDeJapon of what are acceptable sources for that area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP 185.39.64.129 who constantly attacks the article of actor Jackie Moran over the the last few days. He tries to create a fantasy article there instead. --Clibenfoart (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw he also attacked Arthur Cantor and J. Howard Marshall's articles. --Clibenfoart (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been from a couple of different IP ranges. I've given the latest IP a 1-week block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That one is off on its own, but the others seems to be in one tight little range, 185.225.208.0/26, unless I've missed some. I've blocked that for a week too. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

This is a report about User:Mediatech492. It is my first report on this board and I hope that I'm doing this correctly.

Hi, I first reacted to this with a "trout" and a "smiley" template, because it clearly was an accident and I took this humorously. Another user previously involved in a heated discussion added a humorful comment to the section. The reaction made me raise an eyebrow: The whole section was removed from the talk page as if nothing ever happened, and the bad revert was undone without any comment.

That made me have a look at the talk page's history and the rest of the talk page. The user has personally attacked another editor by manipulating the heading of a discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediatech492&diff=798930602&oldid=798921030&diffmode=source "(Undid revision 798921030 by MarnetteD (talk)Per: it's my own talk page and you can go fuck yourself)" (emphasis mine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediatech492&diff=798931007&oldid=798930821&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediatech492&diff=798961304&oldid=798943119&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediatech492&diff=799462575&oldid=799460478&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediatech492&action=history

I highly disapprove of this behavior, I would like to have my talk page comment restored and/or replaced by a warning, I don't want that warning to be removed and I don't know what to do here. The user has been banned twice, but just for "edit warring" and short time periods. Someone acting like this might need a stronger call to order. Especially one that does not get conveniently removed from the talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Editors can remove most things from their talk page per WP:BLANKING. They cannot, however, use headings to attack other editors (WP:TALKNEW). I've changed the wording and warned them not to restore. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate TBF's vigilance, but at least as far as I am concerned the events described by those diffs are ancient history (being in September of last year); I hoped that Mediatech942 felt similarly. I concluded from their wordless removal of our good-natured trouts that they did not, but I was and am prepared to move on. Mediatech942 can remove anything they like (except a declined unblock notice) from their Talk page, and I personally see no reason to restore your/our comments; we know they were seen and, even if their intent was not understood, indirectly acknowledged. General Ization ^Talk 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: @General Ization: Thank you very much. Well, the personal attack report probably came too late - it bothers me that this does not seem to lead to any consequences. I hope that it will at least be remembered if the user continues to ignore rules pointed out to them by multiple different users. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is frivolous whining from an editor (User: General Ization) with a long history of childish behaviour. I have nothing further to say about it. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mediatech492: Another personal attack. Keep it up, and you'll see yourself blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I am the one under attack here, and I have the right to speak in my defence. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right, indeed, to distinguish attacks on personal attributes from attacks on editing behavior, but that only goes so far, here. It's best to walk away. If you can't walk away, that's an indication of where the issue is. MPS1992 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This started because I removed a frivolous edit from my talk page. I then "Walked away" at that point making no further issue of it. But now its been made an issue here, so now I am obliged to deal with this matter until it is resolved. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I don't think you meant to cause offense with your trout, but some editors do not find trouts to be humorous. It's best to avoid giving someone a trout unless you have interacted with them in the past and are on friendly terms. I understand that you didn't appreciate Mediatech's removal of your comment, but you should have let it drop there. Lepricavark (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) Yes – it was the first and only time that I used the "trout" template; as the only reaction was a commentless removal, I'll use a simple kind text message with a winking smiley next time.

Just to clarify here: I didn't create this Administrator Noticeboard entry mainly because my talk page addition has been removed. I created it because of the personal attack I noticed when having a look at the rest of the page. Attempts to remove the attack had been answered by above-mentioned profanities, so I decided to report the user instead of attempting to do what multiple other users failed to do before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So not only do you admit to making pointless edits to my talk page, but you also have now made a frivolous report about an event that occurred many months ago which had nothing to do with you, and was considered a closed event by all involved at that time. May I suggest from now on you limit your efforts to matters that concern yourself. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would a range block be useful for this vandal? In the last month and a half, he has used about 53 IPv6 addresses from 2600:1001:b000: ... to 2600:1001:b128: ... He has also used 25 IPv4 addresses that unfortunately don't fit into ranges very well. Semi-protection has been tried on several members of Category:Cleveland Browns seasons and some unrelated articles like Indian and Homeschooling, but he moves on to other articles and anyway, nobody wants to protect the whole category. Art LaPella (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b000:0:0:0:0:0/39 would get all of the IP addresses, but that's probably wider than necessary. From poking around, it looks like JamesBWatson already range blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b000:0:0:0:0:0/42. Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b100:0:0:0:0:0/42 seems to be where the the user is currently editing. I'll block that for two weeks. We can look at wider range blocks if these fail to stop the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Whatever /39 and /42 may mean, there has been no more of that vandalism so far. Art LaPella (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's back. Oh well, thanks for trying. Art LaPella (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the correct location for this question. Recently an article talking about the AR-15 and NRA pages came out in The Verge. A few other sources have since parroted the article. This material has been added to the article talk pages with commentary that I feel could be seen as inflammatory[[130]]. The article summaries seem arbitrary and the view of the person posting to the talk page. What talk page guidelines would apply? Is it reasonable to include notation that the articles are disputed or that most are repeats? I feel these have been added in a way that could suggest a moral high or low ground with respect to the views of the editors involved. What and how do talk page standards apply to such content, especially when specific editors are named in the articles? Thanks. Springee (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's at least copy it here, so everyone can see what we're talking about:

What about that is improper? Is it the qoutes to show their relevance. Note that this replaced a shorter version which also had quotes, so I just followed that example. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem, although if the OP wants to propose using different quotes, that should be considered. I've only scratched the surface of being involved in gun-related articles following the Parkland shooting and it's quite obvious that there is a dedicated group of editors defending a particular POV. For example, there are four open RfCs at National Rifle Association in which our content policies and guidelines are being interpreted very differently by the same editors depending on whether the proposed material is laudatory or critical of the NRA. - MrX 🖋 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should try to be more consistent :) . Kidding aside, we should be careful with claims of inconsistency. We all carry biases and should be careful about suggesting it's just the other editors least our own edits are subject to critical review. Regardless, thanks for the input. I think we should consider changing the quotes. Springee (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes... The first one is the same quote used in the previous version, placed there by a different editor. The second is not a quote, but a comment, without naming the editor. I could have named that editor, and named all the other editors in the others, but I didn't. I didn't think that would be right. Give me credit for that. That article is very different from the Verge article; it's ruthless, so I didn't even try to pick a quote. The quote from Newsweek is the very first sentence. The quote from Haaretz is from the second sentence. Those quotes are fair quotes which summarize the gist of the content and problem, a problem which I did not create. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Week and Haaretz should probably be removed since those are just parreting the Verge article. The edit summery is pretty problematic and bad faith "Added more articles. BTW, several editors are named and their edits discussed. Don't wear such mentions as badges of honor, because this whole affair has dishonored Wikipedia." while keeping a polemic list on their talk page titled "Wikipedia gun nuts in the news" and listing everyone involved and their perceived issues, going on about a cabal of some sort. The apparent attempt to shame specific editors with it was very inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad faith"? I suggest you keep "boomerang" in mind before you go further down that road. What I have on my own talk page/sandbox is my business, and there's nothing improper with it. Sheesh, it's hatted!

I did not create the problem, or get myself named in RS for violating policies here, so don't try to blame me for the situation. Those names are not in the Press template. That wouldn't be right. BTW, this isn't outing either. Editors who do things get named all the time here, but we still keep their real names private.

I don't see any point to escalating this, as that would just draw more attention to the situation and to those editors, whose usernames would then become known to a broader audience. Right now we are the ones who know, and few others. If your concern is to protect them, then silence is golden. If your real concern is to somehow get me in trouble for not doing anything wrong, then boomerang and Streisand effect kick in and any (feigned?) concern for protecting those editors from shaming will be revealed as a sham, because attacking me for YOUR problems will only reflect badly on you and them. I have no interest in pursuing this further, so don't push my buttons and get me started. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: Please read WP:POLEMIC especially point 3, but it ticks the boxes for basically all of them. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who have weighed in including BullRangifer for posting the contested material (and thus opening themselves up for potential criticism). Springee (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to go further. I have enjoyed the conciliatory conversation on my talk page and we're good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned the external sources talking about the page specifically is fine, I would just eliminate the quotes since that's one editor's take-away from the articles which is not necessarily right or wrong. Given the heated discussions on these articles, those invested should avoid adding anything that could be taken as spin, but it is factually true these external articls about WP's pages were published, and that's fine. (They're short enough and all about the pages; if it were to target a specific page or section, that may be where I'd use a quote only to aid in navigation). --Masem (t) 15:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with that as well. There is nothing wrong with putting external sources about the article in those article. But presentation is important. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Someone else is welcome to remove the quotes. I have to run now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Since no one else has done it yet, I went ahead and did it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the bigger picture, I'd like to see the community step up and respond to the content of these critical articles. My approach would be to break them down point-by-point and discuss each of the issues which have been brought up. I think we'll find a mixture of misconceptions/inaccurate information, problems that have since been resolved and ongoing issues that still need to be addressed. This is an opportunity to self-reflect and educate the public/media about how Wikipedia works. This could take place on WikiProject Firearms where curious media folks are likely to come across it, or at a community-wide venue such as the NPOV noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 17:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is both an interesting and constructive angle. Would a discussion on the Firearms board be a violation of "not a forum"? I'm also not sure about NPOVN since we don't have a specific issue we are trying to address. I'm not trying to be obstructionist and I think such a discussion would be very productive since, if nothing else, I believe the articles cast things in an unfair light. Even if we don't agree on specific content I suspect we would agree on some of the things I think the article got wrong. I won't initiate it but I will happily contribute. Springee (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would precisely be a violation of WP:NOTFORUM, very much so. Well put, Springee. It sounds like a discussion worth having, but please have it somewhere else, on an actual forum. There are other high-profile websites out there where curious media folks would equally, or even more so, be likely to come across it. Links to it at Wikiproject Firearms would be fine, AFAICS. I'm not well-acquainted with internet forums, so I'm shy of suggesting, but, uh, say, a Reddit thread? Or.. I'm sure some people have better ideas. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I brought it up at the Help desk as well. It's relevant to improving the project and addressing potential problems, but I'm not sure if there's an appropriate place to do it. –dlthewave ☎ 19:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today, there were 81 edits made to this article -- far too many for me to follow who's edit warring with whom (if any), or whether there is group/meatpuppet editing going on. If Poland falls under ARBEE, might it not be advisable to put a DS warning and editnotice on the article, and perhaps drop notices on all of today's participants' talk pages? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some potential socking activity, a semi-protection may be in order. I don't think full protection is needed, while there is lot of editing and some back and forth, there is no edit warring, at least, nothing simple. Hopefully this won't end up at arbitration, through some people need to start making middle ground soon... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If only more pages had the problem of a large number of editors. At a quick glance I don't see a need for the DS warning, though if the situation degrades it's clearly an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of edits could be a good thing, but not so much when it appears out of nowhere. This was also an article that recently (easily) survived an AfD, so I'm afraid that there may be editors who are operating on the basis of "if we can't get it deleted, maybe we can gut it, or skew it in our favor." The Poland in WWII subject area has recently become a battlefield because of this, which has passions stirred on both sides Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch BMK. I wasn't even aware of the recent controversy and definitely wouldn't have put the two together.

The article has one of the worst leads I've ever seen. Explicitly setting up a lead to say "this topic doesn't exist; please ignore the rest of this article" is pretty atrocious. The article body cites what appears to be a professional historian's range of estimates as between 7,000 and 1,000,000 (or between 0.025% and 2.857% of the total antebellum population, including Jews who presumably were negligible as a percentage of collaborators but definitely not as a percentage of the overal population) and the lead cites "less than 0.1%"!?

On a more general note, you think we could convince ArbCom that the "Polish death camp" controversy is related to the Holocaust, which is related to Israel, which is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and get EC protection on all of these articles? That would solve the matter pretty handily.

I'm only half tongue-in-cheek; I really think banning all new editors from direct article edits and noticeboard discussions of this kind of topic would be a good idea.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various articles related to Poland/Nazis/Jews have been undergoing a spate of disruptive editing. Rangeblocks and protects have been made but please report if more needs to be done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on Polish topics is already covered by WP:ARBEE, so any warlike acts, persecutions, deaths or misbehavior that occurred on the territory of Poland during World War II are under discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

As you can see from his talk page, I (and others) have tried to talk to AlchemTarun several times over the past several months about overlinking and adding useless or incorrect links to articles. This has included linking to words like science, prominent, potential and damage, where these links do not help to provide context to the article. He has also added links to incorrect articles, and was informed about this by another editor.

He has also been adding pointless links inside citations, such as in [140], which another editor informed was inappropriate, but this was ignored.

I don't see any edits he has made other than adding bad links. At this point, he has contributed nothing to the encyclopedia other than providing more work for others to do to undo these links. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent spam-only account for Open Book Publishers. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a discussion that has been started at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Open_Book_Publishers. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was started by a person who run into this for the first time. There is nothing to discuss; A clear case of WP:NOTHERE SPA. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a admin or editor. Just some random noob who came across an article and was astonished about the unverifiable claims made without the appropriate sources and written with a lack of neutral viewpoint.

It seems these issues were brought to the attention since 2016 and the article has continued to sit for years.

Things like De Lima finds her son 'inspirational' How is that encyclopedic content? And then this section Justice and extra-judicial killings (EJK) "De Lima, who chaired the Commission on Human Rights and was Justice Secretary, is the face of the anti-EJK campaign in the Philippines. She is against the brutal ways propelled by the deadly Philippine Drug War. Her position and investigation on the war irked Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte and led to her imprisonment through trumped-up charges with no concrete evidences[sic]"

First of all, the section and the underlying content have nothing to do with one another. Two, trumped-up charges is loaded language and no concrete evidence is not a legal standard. Nor does the one article source prove or even indicate her opposition to Duetre is what led to her imprisonment

This is only the most noticeable examples as the article is riddled with similar problems throughout. I hope a neutral admin/editor examines the article and makes the appropriate corrections. Thanks.

72.139.196.172 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@72.139.196.172: Sorry, you are in the wrong place. Your remarks are valid, but article content is discussed in article talk pages. Admins have no special authority in article editing, unless there are grave conflicts or editors' misbehavior. Please post your comments in Talk:Leila de Lima. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Sorry for putting this in the wrong place. It has been raised but doesn't seem to be an issue that has been rectified for almost two years. I have re-raised the issue in the talk pages. I have no intent to become an editor sorry for the new IP behind a nat that refreshes regularly

72.139.200.11 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user 79.109.125.172 does not seem to try to adhere to a neutral point-of-view, but rather seems to be attempting to color articles with a political bias. Changes made by this user have been reverted by other users in the past, including Impru20, Mélencron and Helper201 on articles such as Podemos_(Spanish_political_party) and Pirate_Party. For example 79.109.125.172 changed the Ideology section to say Libertarian Socialism instead of Democratic Socialism and Social liberalism respectively before those edits were reverted.

Today 79.109.125.172 made edits to the following pages, later reverted by me (including a slight edit war); La République En Marche!, Citizens (Spanish political party). For example the Ideology section was changed from Social liberalism, Progressivism and Radical centrism into Neoliberalism, Right-libertarianism and "Capitalist Populism" in the case of the former, and similarly on the latter page which 79.109.125.172 has a history of editing followed by reverts from other users.

To me this looks suspicious and as potentially disruptive behavior, but I could be wrong. I would like some more experienced Wikipedians to weigh in by reviewing this user's edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.109.125.172 and see if some action is appropriate or not.

Thanks you,

Johansunden (talk 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been numerous frivolous unblock requests from 52.206.0.0/16 since it was blocked. Revoke talk page? Septrillion (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I will however add that I am not altogether comfortable with a range block set for five years. Is there something here that I am missing? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: See: https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json . Large amounts of 52.x are AWS us-east-1, aka accessible by anyone who starts a free trial account and wants to use it to make a wacky VPN ( e.g. 52.20.0.0/14). We should probably block everything in that file. SnowFire (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock requests are all coming from a lone /24 which is obviously a school using filtering software. A more useful block message might be useful. Indeed a soft block might be more appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to my more tech savvy fellow admins. Please feel free to modify the block in any way you believe appropriate. We should probably keep Slakr in the loop as the original blocking admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, I love how these cats talk so smart, and all I can do is be impressed by them. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Hehe. My command of tech topped out with the advent of the electric typewriter. It was a wondrous thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the Selectric and its "golf ball". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]