User talk:XIIIfromTOKYO

Greetings...
Hello, XIIIfromTOKYO, and welcome to Wikipedia!
 * To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".
 * I (and the rest of us here, too) hope you like it here and decide to stay!
 * Happy editing!  Aaroncrick   ( Tassie Talk ) 10:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cécile Corbel


The article Cécile Corbel has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Warnning for Vandalism
You cannot remove the materials of the articles. Ss1241 (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet of banned from FR. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Kume affair) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Kume affair, XIIIfromTOKYO!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Is this event really so significant and detailed that it needs its own article, or can it simply be discussed at Kume Kunitake?"

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.
 * Hi
 * I have just finished to work on it on the French Wikipedia, and it's currently undergoing a good article review. So, yes, it's really significant, and it needs its own article.
 * XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will defer to your judgement, and a quality article in English would be a plus. I note however that both the English and French article on Kume Kunitake are very short. Hopefully the biography and controversy articles can be expanded appropriately. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Sciences Po & Assas : Sockpuppet Launebee
See Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee for more.

Talk page etiquette
Dear XIIIfromTokyo, your participation in the Talk:Sciences Po debate is quite welcome. However, you are deviating pretty far from WP:Talk page guidelines. In the interest of keeping the discussion focused, I am going to strike off a lot of your statements. Please take it in the right spirit.

If you have conduct allegations against other users, please report them at WP:ANI. The article talk pages are not the place to voice them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked to the French village pump for more contributors to come, read the references, and give their opinion about the issue. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CANVASS. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Sciences Po Panthéon-Assas University. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It is strange that I have been blocked before having the time to answer to your message, so let me answer here, on my talkpage.

Block both of us if you must, but ultimately you will have to have a deep look at what has been going on for months.

I can give you the names of the admins who had to deal with the Paris-Assas issue on the French Wikipédia. It is clear that Launebee has been at work with the same methods on the French Wikipedia before.

The only way for the issue to be stopped is to have it solved. Blocking us won't solve the issue, it will only buy yourself some time. It will start again in a few months, probably with an other account (just like it happened on the French Wikipedia).

Take a few minutes to read Panthéon-Assas University and Science Po articles. One of them if written like an advertisement, the other one as a libel ; both have the same author. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Instead of edit warring, you should have pursued dispute resolution. --Neil N  talk to me 16:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * other contributors have already tried, but so far admins have been very slow to answer our calls.
 * A third option has been tryed, a review of the article has been done, but there is no way to rewrite the article in a way that would take into account the feeback.
 * I have also tried to Request a community input, and left a message a the Project France talk pageRequest community input on article content. But again, that was useless.
 * So what should I do next ? Noticeboards ? Well, there we are.
 * I have been an active contributor on the French Wikipedia for more than 10 years, and I have 100,000+ edits on all projects. There is a disruptive work done, it is and targeting different projects. Again, I can give you the contact of the admin who had to deal with it on the French Wikipedia. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What happens on French Wikipedia has no bearing here (and vice versa). Have you tried WP:DRN or a WP:RFC for a specific issue? --Neil N  talk to me 17:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * the fondation's Terms of Use apply to both the French and the English version of Wikipedia, and both must comply to it. So what happens on French Wikipedia can have a consequence for other versions, and in some situations must be taken into account. I am refering to the point 4 in particular.
 * On the French Wikipedia, Droas account has been created at 14:29, on the 1st of December 2015
 * On the English Wikipedia, Launebee account has been created at 15:16, on the 1st of December 2015
 * Clearly, it's the same individual, as both account have been targeting the same article, with the same kind of references, and the same PR wordings.
 * It has been lasting for a year and a half, and I must confess that I'm not very familiar the EN.wikipedia bureacracy. I have already mention the issu on the talk page of bith article, I can give you the contact of the FR admin who had to deal with the issu, but don't expect me to waste again a year and a half with WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Cheers, XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to state how Launebee violated the TOU here or go to Meta and request a global block. Sockpuppetry can be reported at WP:SPI. A French sdmin has no more say here than I do at the French Wikipedia. --Neil N  talk to me 17:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * did you take the time to simply read both articles ? Both were writen by the same contributor. For Science Po, 75 % of the references, or 41 lines out of the 49 lines of the reputation sections focue on negative aspects ; for Panthéon-Assas University, not a single reference, not a single line to do the same (still, I have provided many references on the talk page). It's simply impossible to mention an the article that there is a problem, and even on the talk page, as Launebee is even erasing that from the talk page. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

(tps) Hi Neil, I have been trying to mediate the discussion at Talk:Sciences Po, but not very successfully, because most of the citations being used are French sources, and I have no idea what standing they have. In some cases, I have referred the parties to take it to the French Wikipedia and get consensus there. But, on the whole, it seems to me that it would be best if we erase everything in these articles here and copy the content from French Wikipedia (suitably translated). Would that be appropriate? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how the French Wikipedia handles the nuances of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:RS. Is the French article stable? --Neil N  talk to me 19:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RfD have targeted ""law schools"" of these colleges fr:Discussion:École de droit de la Sorbonne/Suppression and fr:Discussion:École de droit de Sciences Po/Suppression, but asside from that, it's fairly stable (but that very good articles by French standards. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi XIIIfromTOKYO, I think NeilN is also asking how French policies on issues like WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT etc. compare to ours on English Wikipedia. Please answer that if you can.

, I find that we really have no basis to assess WP:WEIGHT. The content that is being proposed and contested involves knowing how frequently certain issues are being expressed in French sources and even French cultural knowledge that we don't necessarily have on English Wikipedia. Here, for example, is a sentence proposed by the other editor:

The editor claims that "Sciences Pipeau" is a common attribution used for the institution and it is understood that it means that it is giving a "fake" eduction. This is for Sciences Po, which is regarded as a world-leading institution in English sources. The article on French Wikipedia mentions none of this. I would contend that this kind of stuff should be taken to French Wikipedia first and, if it is accepted there, we can easily duplicate it here.

Allegations have also been made that the other editor couldn't do this on French Wikipedia and that is why he/she is targeting the English Wikipedia. It is easy enough for us to state that contentious material based on French sources should be taken to the French Wikipedia first and we can only duplicate it afterwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These policies apply in the same way on the French Wikipedia, as most of the texts are just translations of the English one. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * EDIT : and I assume that meant to write Panthéon-Assas University and not Sciences Po on the message. It might be related to that fact that  started to skip the usual way to report a problem, and started to personnaly ask a specific admin . XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and I just corrected it. It was the above section that mixed me up. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Launebee (talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please actually read the text of the template you're using., a thread about you has been opened here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 09:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Panthéon-Assas University
This article came to my attention per a report at WP:RFPP. Checking the history, I see a large number of reverts by you, about 11 in the last 50 edits of the article. It looks like you have broken the WP:3RR rule on September 13 on this article. (Four reverts in 24 hours are a violation). There may still be time for you to avoid a block if you will promise to make no more reverts on this article until a consensus in your favor is reached on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * one contributor clearly wants to harrass other contributors, and went so far as using a lot of SPA in the past ; this week's use of no less than 4 IPs to revert templates saying that this article was written like an advert clearly shows that any method, including criminal ones can be used by this individual, on group of indivudials.
 * Some people have been paid in the past to clean the French article of this university. The same SPA/IPs has been used on FR also. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Since you declined my offer, I am going ahead with a block for your recent edit warring. Your addition of article quality templates just now on 15 September (after my warning) is similar to one of your reverts from 13 September, so you are paying no attention to my warning to wait for consensus. (Templates need consensus like any other article content). Your reference to 'criminal' behavior above sounds to me like making legal threats. You were previously blocked for edit warring in April 2017 which should have made you aware of the sort of behavior we consider problematic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * there was a consensus on not removing the templates with . The whole discussion is there, and as you can see on the article talkpage, no new discussion or consensus has emerge. You might also want to take a (very long) look at the Sciences Po talkpage ( a rival school) where Launebee is causing the same issues (clearly trying to made the page locked on his/her version, tempaltes removals...). That contributor has been stopped on the French Wikipédia, so it would be nice an admin could start to take care of the issue here also. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this kind of revert considered as acceptable ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Aspersion

 * Hello User:XIIIfromTOKYO. Some of your behavior falls under WP:ASPERSIONS. I am concerned about your recent edit at ANI which seems to charge Launebee with violations of our WP:SOCK policy and seems to assert that he is engaged in criminal behavior. I've been discussing the problem over at User talk:Andrewa. Before I propose any sanctions against you, I'll give you the chance to withdraw or strike out your recent ANI edit, and to state for the record that you are not taking any legal action against Launebee or asserting he is engaged in a conspiracy. You should also withdraw your suggestion that he is violating the national laws of any country. On September 15 you implied that he is a criminal. Any legal charges by you could be grounds for an indefinite block of your account under our policy of WP:No legal threats. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello User:EdJohnston
 * Could you please answer the question that I have asked you on the above section a few weeks ago ?
 * For the records, I not taking (and don't indend to take) any legal action against Launebee. I don't have any connection with these colleges, so I don't care about what can happen to them. But as a 10+ years old, 100.000 edits wikimedian, I'm concerned about what could happen if/when any of this goes public.
 * That said, you have to know that some Wikipedians have been recently targeted by legal actions in France, for edits done on FR.Wikipédia. You can read the details about that on the French village pump.
 * One last thing (sorry, a lot of work). It has not been talked about, but there is also a copyright infringement about the use of "Sorbonne Law School" (and or "Paris Law School"). It came to my attention that it is a registred trademark, owned by Paris 1 University. You can check that on the National Institute of Industrial Property website (I can't provide a direct link), the number is 3555289 for Sorbonne Law School, and 3555293 for Paris Law School). Someone was talking about bringing back the Paris II University article to the stub level, you will have to think about purging it too. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello User:XIIIfromTOKYO,
 * If I am not mistaken, EdJohnston asked you to do four things:
 * 1. Withdraw you edit claiming that I violated the sock policy
 * 2. State that you are not taking any legal action against me
 * 3. State that you are note asserting I am engaged in a conspiracy
 * 4. Withdraw your suggestion that I am violating the national laws of any country
 * You did the second one, but it does not seem you did the three other things. More worryingly, you just did another threat of "things going public" and damage to do to some institutions. You are also doubling on some of the point raised above by EdJohnston:
 * Regarding point 3, you seem to say that the perceived conspiracy I would be involved in, is the same perceived conspiracy that is doing legal procedures against French users (dating of January this year).
 * Regarding point 4, you are saying that the "Sorbonne Law School" article that I created violated the French intellectual property law.
 * This is very problematic. Especially since you have been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants" only 20 minutes before these comments.
 * --Launebee (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I must assume that you are mistaken, because a lot of admins came to the conclusion that you can't speak English. I assume that doesn't need an interpreter or an assistant. So please refrain from making any edit on my talkpage. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The question toward the copyright infringement about the use of "Sorbonne Law School" is still openned and has to be dealt with. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban
Pursuant to the above-noted discussion at WP:ANI, you are hereby topic-banned from making direct edits to articles on French academic institutions, due to your lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Wikipedia. Furthermore, you are cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants. Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block. bd2412 T 12:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect. It took two years, a dozen of ANI reports, and hundreds of diffs. For the record, it took us only a few months to identify the issue on FR.Wikipédia, and to take care of it.
 * Could you be more specific about the "French academic institutions" topic-ban ? You wrote that I was "topic-banned from making direct edits". Does it include talkpages, categories, ANI, incident reports...  ans specifically asking for a Sockpuppet investigations ? You can easily understand I hope that this kind of contribution from a newly created account, who targets the same topic ("Sorbonnic" univeristy in Paris) is more that problematic. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to underline your extremely poor grasp of even elementary English. The ban is direct edits to articles on French academic institutions (my emphasis). Do you really think that this includes talkpages, categories, ANI, incident reports?
 * But I would preach extreme caution, particularly when it comes to categories. If any of your edits directly changes what a reader sees when they view an article, you could easily be seen to be in breach of the TBAN, and a lengthy or even indefinite block is likely.
 * There is no ban on talkpage edits, but again I preach caution. Further disruption or incivility will not be taken lightly, and the excuse that you do not understand the relevant policies is wearing very thin indeed.
 * I am not at all surprised that the issues were more easily handled on French Wikipedia than here. The main complication here has been that the warring editors do not speak English. There was no such problem at French Wikipedia (and even if there had been they deal with such problems far better than we do, see fr:Wikipédia:Bistro des non-francophones/en).
 * Regarding the legal issues in France, it would be good to discuss on French Wikipedia whether it would be good to notify the Wikimedia Foundation legal team of these. I would expect they already know, but a heads-up might be appropriate. They will notify other Wikipedias if it is necessary.
 * Agree that the contribution you cite is problematic, and I think that I have made that quite plain, and that appropriate action has been taken. The user concerned has only been active on two occasions. If you have further concerns about their activity, feel free to raise it on my talk page - or through the appropriate channels if you think yourself competent to do this, but I doubt that competence very much and again preach caution. Andrewa (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * TBAN clearly says that "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic". Why are you surprised of my question, if you agree that any edit to a part of that list (category) could be problematic. And thank you again for your "your extremely poor grasp of even elementary English", as that kind of beheaviour clearly underlines why admins on en.wikipedia were that slow to deal wiht the issue.
 * Regarding the legal issues. You consider that I can't speak English, that I'm a functional illiterate, and you "doubt [my ability to raise the issue through the appropriate channels] very much". Still you aknowledge the problem, and explain that you know how to take care of it. Then I have a good news for you. That's also your problem now. Again, your beheaviour clearly underlines why admins on en.wikipedia were that slow to deal wiht the issue. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Further disruption
I note that you have edited the ANI discussion after it was closed. 

I have reverted this edit. It was disruptive, again unintentionally I hope. I suggest we discuss here. You are of course permitted to raise it again at ANI, but I would advise against it... that would almost certainly see you blocked again, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion
From the ANI archive:

I don't have a single edit on the Sciences Po's article, and your are latter refering to "these two". The "danger" might be real, but I have nothing to do with that article. I think you still don't really understand what's has been going on the the French and on the English Wikipedia. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)''

Note that this was added to the discussion after it had been archived. As this is not permitted (and is itself disruptive, see above), I have reverted it there, and will reply here.

"These two" refers to yourself and Launebee. "They" are Launebee as you guessed, see this edit.

I have not had time to investigate what's has been going on the the French Wikipedia, and do not at this stage intend to do so. How is it relevant? Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me explain it again.
 * I have never edited the Science po article.
 * I have never edited the Science po article. Not even once.
 * "O" is the number of my edit on the Science Po article.
 * Je n'ai pas édité une seule fois l'article de Science Po.
 * What you claim has nothing to do with reality.
 * Only Launebee has edited the article (102 times as of today". S/he did try to write in the introduction that the institution provided "fake education". Many contributors have tried to stop that beheaviour, but have been legally threaten, harrassed, and disgusted away by that contributor. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with those numbered points 1-4. They do not contradict anything I have said, as far as I can see. What exactly do you think I'm claiming that has nothing to do with reality?
 * And please, that could be seen as a personal attack. I'm not going to take action on it. But if I see you similarly attacking others, or if someone else takes it to ANI, I will probably propose or support a block, and it may be indefinite. I note that you have already received a final warning.
 * So I strongly recommend that you abandon your feud here with Launebee. They are topic banned too. Others will keep an eye on them. Leave it alone, and find other areas in which to contribute, assuming that you wish to contribute. Andrewa (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been contributing for more than 10 years, have more than 100,000 contributions on all the projects, and dozens of GA/FA articles on fr.Wikipedia. So yeah, feel free to question my motives if you want. Facts don't matter anyway.
 * You don't intend to investigate about what happened on FR.Wikipedia, and you just hope that "Others will keep an eye on [the articles]". The issue has been lasting for two years because "others" have decided to do nothing. So let's try your way. Again. And hope that this time, for some reason, the result will be different. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct (with one misunderstanding, see below). I hope you will continue to contribute, and so I very much hope that you will stop making bitter and pointless statements such as Facts don't matter anyway (and nothing to do with reality, which I invited you to explain and note that you have not done so, and I suggest we drop that now as another bitter and pointless attack). If you continue you will inevitably be blocked indefinitely, in my opinion. It is only a matter of time. I am trying to avoid that.
 * As to Others will keep an eye on [the articles], no, I said I strongly recommend that you abandon your feud here with Launebee. They are topic banned too. Others will keep an eye on them. I have explicitly and consistently suggested that you be allowed to comment on the talk pages. There was no point in allowing this if you were not to allowed to keep an eye on [the articles], was there? I hope you will.
 * No, but others will keep an eye on Launebee. And on you. None of us wanted to topic ban either of you. None of us wanted to block you. None of us want you indeffed. We become volunteer admins to help build the encyclopedia, and it breaks our hearts to have to curtail the activities of valuable contributors such as yourselves. You left us no choice.
 * Take a short Wikibreak is my advice, and feel free to comment on my talk page. In fact if you wish to let off steam and attack me that's probably a better place than your own, as I can be more forgiving there than others may be here. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

New ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Specifically, see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents which was raised by, who also of course left that unsigned notification above. Andrewa (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

University of Paris
Dear XIIIfromTokyo,

I have seen that you made your point at the Sorbonne University talk page. I share your astonishment regarding its current content.

I realize that you might be also interested in the discussion that is going on in the University of Paris talk page [].

Could you please help us to reach a consensus there?

Thank you and have a nice day. --SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Dear XIIIfromTokyo,

Given the lack of consensus on the University of Paris and Sorbonne University talk page, I have request a dispute resolution regarding these pages.

Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Best, --SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Bezen Perrot
Demat. Tennet eo bet ganin al luc'hskeudenn hag a ziskouez ar rastelladeg er Faoued (7 a viz Mae 1944). Eus kornad ar Faoued on, ha biskoazh n'am eus klevet (gant tud eus ma familh, pe amezeien) pe lennet anv ar Bezen en afer-se... A galon. Kadbzh (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hag adlakaet eo bet al luc'hskeudenn... N'eus forzh petra! Kadbzh (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Location map France Le Mans
Template:Location map France Le Mans has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Sciences Po & Assas : User Delfield
See also Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee/Archive for more.

ANI-notice A
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Delfield (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI-notice B
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is XIIIfromTOKYO (need an admin who speaks French). Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delfield (talk • contribs) 09:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Good evidence and bad evidence
I've opened or been involved in very few SPIs so maybe this is useless as I don't know what I'm talking about. But I don't think so as I think my experience at noticeboards and general is sufficient to spot some flaws in evidence. Rare behavioural or English usage quirks shared between sockpuppets is something that is helpful in identifying sockpuppetry. Non-rare ones are not unless a specific combination of them is likely to be very rare. I think you sort of know this, but I'm not sure you followed this to the next conclusion. In particular, in that SPI you keep talking about, you ask about usage of "bizarrely". Once someone mentions it's common for at least some native speakers, and indeed I'm fairly sure I've used it more than once in Wikipedia discussions myself and I know almost no French, you realise it isn't useful as evidence.

However you're still interested in the possible use of "French-style English-grammar and wording". To my mind, this is not very useful at all. Unless the editor has denied being French, and I never saw any indication they did so, someone mostly interested in French institutions being themselves French and in part because of that using French-style English grammar and wording is not unexpected. In other words, maybe the editor concerned does so, but them doing so so isn't good evidence of sockpuppetry since there's a good chance an innocent editor would also do so given the circumstances.

The only time I can see this being useful is if there's also evidence of some language usage that is rare among either English or French speakers, but was common for the sockpuppet and is common among speakers of some other language/s. In that case, I could see an argument being made that just like earlier socks, this new editor uses some grammar/wording which yes is common for speakers of language X so may not be that unusual. Except they also use French grammar/wording just like the earlier socks and this grammar/wording isn't expected for speakers language X. So we now have two language quirks which taken together may seem unusual.

Also just to add to what I said at ANI, for good reason, we require sufficient evidence before we block an editor for sockpuppetry. While you may believe there is sufficient evidence, those who've reviewed what was posted found there wasn't. It's hardly uncommon that this happens. I understand it's frustrating to deal with socks and as I said, ultimately you're free to believe whatever you want. But one a case has been closed with no finding of sockpuppetry, you have to let it go on Wikipedia. If new evidence is posted, a block may happen in the future. This doesn't mean a mistake was made with the earlier case, if the evidence isn't strong enough then it isn't strong enough. (I'm not denying that mistakes can happen, simply suggesting that a lot of the time, it wasn't a mistake but acting on the evidence presented at the time.)

Remember also, it's perfectly possible to believe editor A is a sock of editor B, while also accepting there isn't sufficient evidence so we just have to let it be for now, not even opening a case if you feel there isn't sufficient evidence. I've definitely done that at times. I'm fairly sure that sometimes admins including those who review SPIs feel the same i.e. I strongly suspect A is a sock of B, but I don't feel the evidence is strong enough for me to block. Note that AFAICT, given the length of time it's unlikely there was ever any technical evidence available, so a case could only ever have been on behavioural evidence alone.

Sometimes eventually sufficient evidence emerges and they are blocked. Sometimes an editor leaves before any block happens or an indef block happens for reasons besides sockpuppetry and the editor never successfully appeals, so we never know if we're right. Sometimes we're just wrong and come to this realisation later. And yes, sometimes unfortunately an editor probably manages to stay around forever as a sock.

By not accepting the outcome of that SPI and continuing to insist there is compelling evidence of sockpuppetry you're damaging your credibility and making it more difficult to deal with possibly legitimate concerns you may have unrelated to sockpuppetry. When I checked our your link, my initial thinking was, maybe it's not worth looking into this much. If the editor is soon going to be blocked for sockpuppetry, why bother? I expected to find a compelling case which would probably soon be dealt with by admins.

Instead I found a case which had already closed in October with the closing statement suggesting the evidence wasn't sufficient. So now my thoughts were now fairly different. I was thinking, wait a minute, if that's what you think is a compelling case which just needs admin attention, why should I believe any of your other evidence is any more compelling or correct? There seems to be a good chance it's all questionable. When I read further and found you'd already been told to stop referring to the SPI as demonstrating sockpuppetry back in an earlier ANI thread, my opinion dropped even lower.

You may very well be very experienced and know a lot about Wikipedia. Unfortunately what I saw is the opposite of this. I saw someone who doesn't seem to understand the basics of how things work around here, and seem unable to understand or accept what they've been told. This could very well be unfair, but it's also a conclusion your words and actions led to.

I'd add even if you're right and if someone looks again carefully at the SPI, they'd block for sockpuppetry, the chances this will happen now after all this time are from my experience very low. So no matter if you're right there's still no point bringing it. You can continue to be annoyed if you want, but again your only real choice is to drop it on Wikipedia for your sake as much as anyone. WP:Dead horse comes to mind.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Success", "credibility", "legitimate"... let's move that to the Ad hominem arguments folder will you, near the Avoid personal remarks folder, and pretend for your own sake that you didn't resort to that kind of rhethoric. Wikipedia is not based on personnal reputation or ranking, but about rules. You know it, I know it. SP is one of these rule, and so is CSECTION or RS. Sciences Po article no longer follows these rules, and it's turning into a big mess about "elite" organized pedophilic orgies. A 200 edits contributor with an insanely fast learning curve has started a handfull of ANI against me, and some rules might have been broken in the processs, including WP:HOUNDING and other parts of WP:Harassment.
 * You cherrypicked a question that I asked during the SPI, ignore other elements provided by the other contributor, and dropped the rest of the SPI. I'm not disappointed about it ; you clearly said that you didn't want to have a look at it.
 * "I saw someone who doesn't seem to understand the basics of how things work around here, and seem unable to understand or accept what they've been told." I was about to drop a cleaver answer to that, but the bet is too big. Wikipedia is not about your believes, it's about community rules.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsolicited photo of a graphic NSFW material. Yet, I leave it here so that anyone can see the kind of beheaviour I have to face.
 * The name of the second photo, "Couperet à débiter les lapins 04.jpg" means in French "cleaver used to slash open rabbits". Of all the available photos, the one with a French title has been chosen. And what a title. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

2 days block
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you please tell what was the "personal attacks towards other editors" that I made. If not the link, at least the quote. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I commented on that in the ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I saw you celebrating the moment that you said ""We'll have no more from XIII for 48 hours. "".
 * That's why I ask you again to give me the actual "personal attacks towards other editors" part.
 * I specifically asked for quotes. You have missed that part of my question. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Colons and asterisks. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So, what is the actual quote ?
 * You see, in a discussion in which you were involved, I specificaly asked to avoid words as "clean", explaining that, as a French, it was derogatory. Your answer to my remark was "I have been cleaning up personal attacks from talk pages for a decade or more and will continue to do so". Despite my remark, you boldly choose to use that word.
 * We don't see things the same way, and that's why I need the actual quote. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's one: "Delfield made the choice to make a new forgery, and commit a copyright infringement." "You are now accusing me to make an apologia for pedophilia" is another. And of course this, "There is a strong case against Delfield for a long time abuse of sockpuppet". Drmies (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * in the same order.
 * The title of the section (that I choose) is "Possible falsification of conversation (verification needed)" (my words). I have the conviction that the sitution that I have described is accurate, and links have been systematicaly provided. You have the right to disagree with my not opinion, but that doesn't make it an insult.
 * That's Delfield statement : "I read better the comment of XIIIfromTokyo, and I saw that he is directly calling the Duhamel story "pedophile conspiracies". I cannot withstand that such comment is so hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia who begin to have the courage to speak about it France, thanks to the testimony about the REAL victim of Duhamel, and who could read such comments online. Such a statement should not be taken lightly and, I am now in favor in a (permanent) block. It is an extremely serious matter and this only should be subject to a permanent block if there is no retraction (and if he strikes his whole comment too of course). ".. He hasn't provided provided any link, even when I ask for it. "calling the Duhamel story "pedophile conspiracies"". Delfield is clearly stating that I'm denying the pedophyle aspect of the Duhamel Affair, that is to say, making the apology for pedophilia. "hurtful and disrespectful for the many victims of pedophilia" And now I'm someone who hurts victims. What's the next step ? I'm an holocaust denier and I eat kitten ? That's clearly an insult. How can you possibly support that kind of beheaviour ?
 * An SPI was filled by an other contributor, and I backed the claim. en.Wiki is understaffed, that's your problem, not mine. You have a 200 edit SPA on your hands, with an incredibly fast learning curve, and a strong taste for controversial articles. If it doesn't trigger a few read light, nothing will. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Moral rights says that "The moral rights include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation"". That definitively settle the copyright infringement part. Altering my quote in order to change its meaning was not acceptable. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

TLDR : Drunk driver insults mobbing
I would like a direct quote myself, but on quite another subject. XIIIfromTOKYO, can you provide a quote where anyone anywhere on Wikipedia accused you of any wrongdoing and you agreed that you were wrong and promised to stop? Ever? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So you suggest that I'm a stubborn contributor who can't acknowledge when he is wrong, am I right ? You know that it's a breach of Assume good faith and a personnal attack ; so intead of voicing that aloud, you clumsily turn that into a question. Yet, the burden of proof is still on your side, not mine. When you suggest that an other contributor is the cause of a wrongdoing (or lack of any good behavior, "Ever"), you have to provide the direct quotes.
 * But, well actually yes, I think I can provide something around these lines.
 * As you can see, I've written about 50 feature and good articles on fr.wiki. Some of them have even been totally of partially translated by other contributors on en.wiki. I know for a fact that my French grammar is more often than not, not on par. That's why, because I know that this aspect can (and will) be deficiente that I ask other contributors to check it. So earlier this month, once I have finished to add 200'000+ bytes to the fr:Histoire de la Corée, I asked other contributors to do so "il y a un gros travail de relecture à faire (orthographe)".
 * So, I acknoledge that I do mistakes.
 * And earlier in 20202, when I last started a GA process, I personally gave a thank to the other contributors who spent their times correcting my grammar mistakes Il y a eu quelques relectures faites par  Lepsyleon Théo Vansteenkeste, et de la carto faite par Sémhur".
 * So yes, I can even express gratitude to other contributors when they correct some of my mistakes.
 * Oh, and by the way, can you provide that kind of quote for yourself ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * you still seem to be refusing to accept that the SPI was reviewed and rejected. The main problem is not that we're understaffed but that it was a poor SPI. If you continue to publicly reject that the SPI failed because of insufficient evidence, you're likely to be subject to longer and longer blocks. If the other editor is really a sock as you allege they may very well "win" by default. Maybe someone else like the editor who opened that SPI will deal with any alleged problematic behaviour, maybe not. I don't understand why you effectively keep asking to be blocked rather than sticking around and deal with this alleged problematic editor. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You exhausted everyones WP:AGF a long tome ago. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.
 * Admitting that you made a typo or some other simple error is not the same as admitting that you violated a Wikipedia policy, as you did when you violated WP:TPOC while falsely accusing another editor of violating WP:TPOC or the multiple times that you have told obvious lies about other editors, such as claiming someone admitted they were talking about your mental health with a link to them explaining that they were talking about their own mental health.
 * I have plenty of examples of me admitting that I made a typo or some other simple error. Sorry, I don't have any examples of me violating Wikipedia's policies or guidelines (as you have repeatedly done and refused to admit to), because I don't as a rule violate Wikipedia's policies or guidelines (evidence: fifteen years and 55,000 edits without a single block, topic ban, or other sanction).
 * Feel free to have the last word with another long-winded reply. I will not read it. I have seen your song and dance act several times and am not impressed.
 * There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You won, I have removed these articles fom my watch-list, and I don't want to hear of these articles again.
 * Full-disclosure, I openned a topic about that on the French village-pump two days ago. From the feedback I got, I wouldn't be surprised if things reach a solution by a set of outside initiatives. And I'm fine with that.
 * And for Guy Macon, I also have a story. "There once was a group of British tourists who took the ferry boat to France. They took their cars and started to drive on the wrong way on the freeway. They couldn't understand the traffic signs, and were more numerous, so they thought that they were right". You see where it's headed ? There is an asymetry in the situation. To understand the big picture, you need to be able to understand French, and be aware of some aspects of college rivalties in France. An other contributor has understood that, and is checking the references to show the mistakes, and there are a lot of them. That's an high-maintenance situation.
 * So again, you won, but you might not like the final reward. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The British tourists eventually will diffuse into the greater pattern of traffic and realize they're wrong. The drunk never does. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Drunk people eventually sober up at some point.
 * Like it or not, but you and are showing signs of recovery :
 * In early January, started the discussion, stating that "An entire section added has been written inaccuratly pretending facts that are not in the sources and is using also poor source (Gala). It's like a gossip article". I came to the same conclusion and left the following comment : "I'm not surprised, and I think MePhisto won't be either. Junk sources, fraudulent use of references, and abusive promotion of Paris Assas University. Nothing New.".
 * And now, in early March, removes the whole litigious part written by Delfield, and leaves the comment "This is WP:UNDUE. Feel free to put a less tabloidish version in the Olivier Duhamel article", and  goes further, leaving the comment Jesus, who writes this dreck?.
 * As you can see, we came to the same conclusion about this article. For some reason, it took you 2 more months to understand the core problem. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Drunk people eventually sober up – Not if they keep inbibing to stave off the intrusion of reality.
 * For some reason, it took you 2 more months to understand the core problem – If you're talking about the inappropriate article content then no, it took me about 2 minutes. However, the "core problem" here isn't the content problem; it's your behavior, which also took me about 2 minutes to understand. Unfortunately it seems to be taking you a lot longer.
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, you have spent only 2 minutes to go through the talks. I can trust you on that.
 * Speaking of inappropriate content. Maybe you should consider that posting boobs on my talk page like you do is inappropriate. And so is using the word "Froggish" like you do is also inappropriate. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Boob is a word I'd stay away from if I were you. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ban of the "apeshit" "drunk" "Froggish" speaker
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruption per the community consensus at WP:ANI here. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

So my identity has been disclosed.

My comments have been described as "apeshit", my comments as those of a "drunk driver", and French langage as "Froggish". And that's only for the last few days of racial and/or ethnic slurs.

And most of the voters at ANI have been previously selected to WP:VOTESTACK the decision. That's simply epic. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's clear my attempts to help haven't been successful so I won't comment further except on one point. If you have concerns another editor has disclosed alleged personal information about yourself or any other editor, when this alleged information has not been voluntarily disclosed on Wikipedia, you should follow the suggestions at WP:OUTING. This means remove the alleged information if possible and email Oversight. Don't talk about it when the alleged information is still in the history, as that just draws attention to it. This is what I did, I removed the alleged information of concern and emailed oversight and they suppressed the history so it's not possible to find it anymore. It's also normally best not to comment or imply whether the information is true. I have also warned the editor concerned against OUTING. Note to avoid drawing attention to it, I waited until the suppression had happened before talking about it, other than an edit summary which I felt was necessary given how long the information had been there and that it was on another editor's talk page a silent removal risked just drawing more attention if it lead to a dispute before the edits could be suppressed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Feeding time is over
I call for everyone involved to stop responding to XIIIfromTOKYO. They are obviously attempting to get a reaction. Let them shout into an empty hall for a while and we will see if they get tired of it and go elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. You have repeatedly compared my to a drunk driver. After these insults, you came to the conclusion that I had a beahaviour problem. Now might be the right time to adress that issue. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Everyone's come to the conclusion you have a behavior problem. We've tried. From here out I'm taking GM's advice. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * One bit of advice that I forgot to mention. If you go to your "preferences" tab, then "notifications", then "muted users", you can revoke XIIIfromTOKYO's ability to ping you, cause a notification by linking to your username, or otherwise show up in your alerts. Very useful feature in situations like this one.
 * "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As a point of pride I never mute anyone, block their email, or tell them not to post on my talk page. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, when Guy Macon is not repeatedly comparing my to a drunk driver, now it's about a "self-righteous sixteen-year-olds".
 * I fail to see how it fits in Wikimedia uCoC.
 * Maybe it's time for you to take a look at all of your comments, read the uCoC, and act accordingly. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)