Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive937

Users Soham321 and Bastun talk page disruption, disrespect for process, etc.

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

---

Certain content at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations is disputed and under RfC. I won't get into the nature of the content dispute because this page is not for resolving content disputes (although I have no doubt that two editors will try to bring the content dispute here as some sort of defense or diversion).

The article is under cover of the U.S. politics ArbCom remedies, which specifies that disputed content stays out until talk page consensus is reached to include it. Previous attempts to resolve the content dispute failed to reach consensus.

Users Bastun and Soham321 are being disruptive on the article talk page in their claims that the RfC is not legitimate. Apparently, since there is no valid reason to dispute the content in their view, that means that the RfC should be killed. This shows a failure to understand and respect Wikipedia principles of decision-making, in particular WP:CONSENSUS. I started the RfC in good faith, and not unilaterally. Considering that the situation has been clearly explained to both of them, I think their claims point to a bad-faith attempt to end-run the ArbCom remedies.

At the end of my !vote in the RfC, I included my opinion that a "no consensus" close should mean no content in this situation.[1] I think I'm allowed to make such a suggestion—the closer is free to disregard it—but Bastun said it was part of an attempt to "poison the well".[2] WTF? This is part of a pattern of WP:AGF failure by both editors.

Bastun started a subsection in the RfC to challenge its legitimacy.[3] This is obviously highly visible, being in the table of contents, but there has been no support for the claim in about 36 hours. And yet they persist elsewhere on the page, apparently not understanding what "no support" means at Wikipedia.

I have repeatedly tried to address this situation using reason, and this approach has failed. Soham321's current position is effectively "Take me to ANI or shut up".[4] This leaves me little choice. ANI complaints should be last resorts, but I don't know what steps I have skipped here. I think I've done everything possible except beg.

We all have our political biases, but those biases do not make us assume bad faith, be disruptive, or attempt end-runs around established process. These two editors are the conspicuous exception at that article. I seek temporary blocks—or topic bans from U.S. politics—until after the November 8 election—for both editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have very little experience with this process. If there are other disruptions that fit with the heading, but are not related to the RfC, can they be added here as well?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: It would have to be pertinent to the noticeboard first also I think, and under a level three sub-heading. (this would be my guess) - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1. WP:BOOMERANG is applicable here.
• 2. Mandruss has a history of trying to convert content disputes into conduct disputes and thereby try and get editors he disagrees with penalized. For more on this, please see him try and get another editor penalized with who he had a content dispute: NeilN Talk Page. Mandruss accuses me of battleground editing, and in my response i deny his allegation and refer to his habit of converting content disputes to conduct disputes by pointing to what he tried doing to Zigzig: diff1. Mandruss insists that Zigzig is guilty of disruptive editing, and claims Zigzig's modus operandi (m.o.) is the same as mine which is why i cannot recognize Zigzig's disruptive behavior. Mandruss claims he has received communication via email from "a senior editor" endorsing Mandruss's belief that Zigzig is guilty of disruptive editing: diff 2. Notice Zigzig's response in diff 2 and at NeilN's talk page confirming it was only a content dispute. Notice the language Mandruss uses when communicating with Zigzig at NeilN's talk page.
• 3.Mandruss is guilty of disruptive editing on a talk page of a sensitive WP article. Even though only Admins can place any WP article under ArbCom sanctioned discretionary sanctions, Mandruss placed the article under discretionary sanctions unilaterally without any consultation even though he is not an Admin. See diff 3. This issue only came to light when i made an edit on the talk page of the article pointing out that the main article seems to have been placed under discretionary sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#1RR_violations
• 4.Mandruss is guilty of disruptive behavior for obstinately insisting that The Guardian not be used as an RS in the main article. See Edit 1, and Edit 2 For several days there was a section in the main page of the disputed article describing a 13 year old "Jane Doe" who had claimed that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her. The Guardian article had done a thorough job of debunking the allegation. So the fact that Mandruss would not let the Guardian be used as a reference reflects poorly on him. To be fair to him, the consensus on the talk page was with him (despite my protests), but now the consensus on the talk page has changed and it has been agreed that The Guardian is a reliable source as far as the main article is concerned. The change in consensus was instigated by my efforts as can be seen on the article talk page.
• 5. I have done a lot of constructive editing on the article's talk page, and the discussion about the article in the NPOV board which i initiated. My views have been endorsed by other editors including not just Bastun, but also BullRangifer.
• 6. The fact that i have been doing constructive editing is evident if one notices that even people who disagree with my views in certain respects have accepted some of the things i have said and accordingly they on their own have made modifications to the main article along the lines of what i have said. For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Donald_Trump.27s_response_.28NPOV_related_issues.29 with specific reference to point 2, where an editor in response to my post says "Good spot, I'll swap that for a different quote."
• 7. In short, i have been a constructive editor. Mandruss has also been a constructive editor, but he has also been guilty of disruptive conduct and behavior (for instance, obstinately insisting that The Guardian cannot be used as an RS, and unilaterally placing the article under discretionary sanctions even though he is not an Admin). Mandruss's history of trying to place a ban on Zigzig by complaining about Zigzig to NeilN after he had a content dispute with Zigzig suggests that here is a person who believes in converting content disputes into conduct disputes and thereby get rid of editors who are opposed to his views from editing pages he is interested in.
• 8.This is an endorsement of my conduct on the talk page of the article, and also endorsement of my decision to take a dispute about the article to the NPOV board: coffman diff.
• 9.Finally, i only gave the diff of a comment i had made in Mandruss's RfC since i thought editors participating in the RfC would find it pertinent. I have not commented on the the validity of Mandruss's RfC. This is the diff i had given: RfC diff Soham321 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• I see my name has been invoked under point five above. I'm not involved enough for my name to be used in this manner, either for or against. Please don't use my name in this manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• My apologies for invoking your name. However, nothing prevents me from copying the comments you have made endorsing my views from article talk page to here. In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#About_the_neutrality_banner of the article talk page you endorse my comment by writing: "Soham321, thanks for the ping. Yes, the content should be restored, regardless of whether it helps or hurts Trump. It is covered in RS, so it deserves mention." Also, in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Use_of_biased_sources_is_required_by_policy you confirm that the only reason you are posting on the article talk page is after you saw the NPOV discussion initiated by me in the NPOV board. Soham321 (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

BullRangifer was a new arrival at the page, did not understand the context surrounding that content, and made an out-of-context statement. They confirmed that on their talk page, here. Considering you knew all of this, your claim of his support shows bad faith on your part. It shows that you are willing to distort the facts in order to defend yourself here (or simply can't see the facts very clearly). This should reflect on the credibility of the rest of your statements. I can counter each and every statement you have made, but (1) this page is not for resolving content disputes, and (2) that would make this complaint so long that few people would take the time to read all of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that Mandruss has been in communication with BullRangifer after my first comment in this discussion and before Bull's comment here. I would like it to be determined whether this violated WP:CANVASS. It does seem like canvassing to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BullRangifer#Jane_Doe_content_at_Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations Soham321 (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Isaidnoway, Zigzig20s and Jack Upland (all three of these editors have edited on the concerned article talk page) if they wish to offer a comment here. Soham321 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of reliable sources

Comment - There are several reasons why it would be best to work this out without an ANI, part of it was discussed on the AN talk page - that there's a backlog and so this may not be worked for some time. It seems it's in all of our best interests to do this, but I can also see that this was opened and you have the right to defend yourself.

There is a request to try to work this out in a following subsection. I would like to leave this on top as a comment - in the hope that we can do that. If you say that we cannot, I will move it myself below and it will be part of the conversational thread. I apologize that it was upsetting to you when I attempted to closed it out. It is fine with me to leave it open right now, Soham321. Personally, if we can get productive conversation rolling, that would be HUGE. And, I would like to hear constructive feedback about how I can help make that happen.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

---

There have been a number of conversations and claims that the article has POV issues and is not neutral due to a list of sources that was created during an examination of the sources used in the article. The list was initially prepared to investigate the claim that the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article had POV and reliable source issues, this is the archived discussion. The list was prepared using sources in the article. Input was then gathered from the RSN - and feedback on the article talk page about RSN input on reliable sources. It has also been used as a guide to show what have already been determined to be reliable sources and unreliable sources. The issue was resolved once sources—such as Politco, Huffington Post, the Independent—were replaced. If I had it to do over again, I would never have used the list after the resolution of that earlier claim.

Although this has been explained many times, both Soham321 and Bastun continue to bring up the conversation on the talk page. There has been no attempt to engage in discussion to clarify use of sources. What comes up the most are the following items, now with their own subsections: Guardian and the use of the list of sources (eight of its articles are currently used as sources in the article)—as well as Daily Beast and Jezebel.

It has been discussed in the article talk page in several sections and in the Issues at a Donald Trump page posting at NPOVN, which is not moving forward and seems to be a complaint about content that is not being added to the article, apparent disagreement with the resolution to a dispute opened up on the talk page by Soham321, about removal of content, and concern about the lack of neutrality, because of the Guardian, Daily Beast and Jezebel source discussions. Soham321 also flagged the article as having a neutrality issue. I don't have a problem and I support resolution of POV and neutrality or POV claims; we're stalled on that at the moment.

Regardless of the number of times the source issue is brought up and discussed, they keep bringing it back up. It's disruptive to the NPOVN discussion and the article talk page. It seems if they are not hearing what they want, they just keep restating their allegations over and over again - rather than working towards understanding and a resolution.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson has expressed her bias on multiple occasions and i would propose she be banned from editing the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page. Details of Carole violating WP:CANVASS may be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#My_user_page . Some relevant points from the link: in a Teahouse post she made, Carole wrote: "This DT article has seen pressure from what seem to be supporters to add content favorable to Trump." And in a ping to another editor (who had not done any editing on the Trump page) Carole wrote " I'm working on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article and there is a push to get the article slanted in Trump's favor." The fact that i have been a constructive editor on the main article is revealed if one notices that i have explained the interpretation of what were conflicting sources related to the Trump divorce to Carole on my talk page, and the final edit she placed on the main article was after her discussion with me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#The_Trump.27s_divorce Notice also that Carole and Mandruss have been posting numerous messages on each other's talk pages and sandbox pages about what the content in the Trump article should look like; i am not sure whether this is a good idea considering this is such a controversial article and it raises unnecessary suspicions. Soham321 02:47, October 25, 2016‎ (UTC)

it raises unnecessary suspicions in your mind, perhaps. There is nothing improper in that, nothing is hidden (you found it all by yourself). The sandbox page was a collaboration on the RfC to make sure it was clear and neutral, and I think the results are that. Poorly formed or worded RfCs are wastes of time. I direct you yet again to WP:AGF and I encourage you to work on not seeing ill intent in everyone who disagrees with you as to content. This job is difficult enough without that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have always assumed good faith as is clear by this edit of mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=prev&oldid=745731678 I stand by my claim that in controversial articles like this one, its not a good idea to do any kind of tag teaming on talk pages and sandbox pages to determine the article content since it raises questions of bias. Soham321 (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again incorrect. At any article there will be editors who generally see eye-to-eye on things. To view that as "tag teaming" is yet another failure to AGF. I'm not going to avoid CaroleHenson in side collaborations or go out of my way to disagree with her in discussions (although I have done so multiple times, and can produce that evidence if some fair-minded editor asks me to do so), just to avoid your misguided accusations of complicity. Stop it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful, Soham321, if we could stay focused on the issues. If you want to open up an issue against me, do whatever you think is the right.

What is of much more interest to me is: Can you respond the discussions? I haven't seen you respond on the talk pages to the points about the Guardian, Daily Beast, and Jezebel - or an issue that you had with someone updating the citation info for a reliable source and removing two sources that weren't needed. If it's possible for you to respond in the About the neutrality banner subsections, that would be really great. (I know I came on strong in several places today to try and herd the discussions, because I don't think people responding to the recent discussions know the history or that these things have already been brought up several times. I also question whether you realize that some content, like that from Daily Beast and Jezebel is still in the article, it just has improved sources.)

As an aside, I have also asked for your input on how to move the NPOVN forward, and had two suggestions. I recently posted it, so you may not have seen it yet - that could really help, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: This page is not for resolving content disputes, and they invariably distract and divert from the behavior complaint. As I predicted, Soham321 is attempting to do just that. There is nothing about the conduct dispute that would excuse the behavior, so it's irrelevant here. We can say that the user has been generally unresponsive, but then we have to prove it, in exhaustive detail, defending each and every point against attack by the defendant. There is no end to that, and I don't think we need to go there. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Soham321 Regarding tag teaming above, is that the link you meant to use? I don't see how that supports the tag-teaming claim. It's your comments - making a statement that is a denial of what you are saying here about me. Did you mean to use a different reference?

I agree with Mandruss that we've often disagreed, there's even discussion about that on your talk page about that - because I know you've been watching me and it followed our canvassing discussion. I said that if you see a particular discussion, I was trying to get traction on resolving an issue that I disagreed with him about - but wanted to see if we could move it forward. So, I wasn't "canvassing", it wasn't a like-minded person on that issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, like I said at the top of this, I have little experience with this, and it was several years ago on a COI kind of issue. Did I strike out the right part?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Anything having to do with sources is part of the irrelevant content dispute. Even if they were in the right as to the content, which will be decided by the RfC's closer, that would not excuse or justify ongoing disruption and disregard for process. I think most of your above comment is in that area. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me back up, because I'm not understanding what you're saying. This heading is "Users Soham321 and Bastun talk page disruption, disrespect for process, etc." I have had issues with talk page disruption and disrespect for the process regarding the reliable sources issue. Are you saying: 1) I should do whatever is the right step is to have this entire sub-section closed out, 2) make changes or a statement to disregard something that I've posted within this subsection or 3) something else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Well I don't know. If you can't talk about a behavior pattern without putting it into the context of a content dispute, I'd just leave it out. Note that I haven't said anything about any sources. Now that the RfC is active, there should not be any discussion of the Jane Doe content outside of the RfC's discussion section. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Ok, the lightbulb is starting to go on, but I'm not fully there yet. Yes, I could frame it in terms of a content dispute. First of all, there are statements that the entire article is in question because of a list of reliable and non-reliable sources was prepared. There are postings on the talk page that lead people to believe that content was excluded because of the a non-neutral view of what are reliable sources - and that it should be returned, without mentioning the real reasons why it was deleted. And, continuing to mention outrage that content from two sources were not used in the article - but not mentioning at all that that they were considered to be non-RS sources at RSN and that there had been content from those sources that was used, but the sources were improved. There is also intersection of the RS issue with the RfC issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Ohhhhh, or did I get confused by the number of nots in your reply?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Carole, for framing this in terms of a content dispute. The "outrage" was due to removal of content that used as reference an article from The Guardian. The content removal was justified on the ground that The Guardian is not an RS due to this reason: Edit 1. I had then pointed out that The Guardian article had been endorsed by The Daily Beast and corroborated by Jezebel, and this was the response: Edit 3 And i am not the only person on the talk page who had expressed objection to what was going on (although i may have been the first person to do so on the talk page). However, i was always polite and kept respecting consensus all throughout this episode, until the consensus turned in a different way and it was agreed that The Guardian was an RS for the main article.Soham321 (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, this was The Guardian article which Mandruss (supported by others--the consensus was with him) was not allowing to be used as a reference for the main article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow Soham321 (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You might wonder why material from The Guardian article is not being used in the main article even now when it has been agreed through discussions on the article talk page and the NPOV board that The Guardian article is an RS for that WP page. It is because Mandruss has started an RfC with respect to material in The Guardian article. Bastun has argued that this is a frivolous and invalid RfC: diff and diff2 Soham321 (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: That is a distorted misrepresentation of my argument, which is now a mere !vote in an RfC. I have tried to clarify this for this user elsewhere, to no avail. No one else seems to have trouble understanding my position, but does that mean anything at all to this person?? Nope. But this page is not for resolving content disputes. If anybody cares about that part, if anybody sees a shred of credibility in anything that this user says, I invite them to contact me on my talk page. I do not discuss content disputes at ANI, full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In Mandruss's comment above (which were a response to CaroleHenson's comment), note the words "If you can't talk about a behavior pattern without putting into the context of a content dispute, I'd just leave it out." First, this only reveals Mandruss's fear that this be seen as a content dispute (which it is). Also, i object to Mandruss trying to coach Carole with respect to her comments here. He is basically telling her what to say and what not to say in his zeal to not let this appear to be a content dispute.Soham321 (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

First, this only reveals Mandruss's fear that this be seen as a content dispute (which it is) - Once again incorrect. That reveals nothing of the sort. This page is not for resolving content disputes, and I have more than adequately explained here why that is irrelevant to this complaint. Once again you suffer from severe WP:IDHT and WP:AGF failure. Here in the U.S. we call that, "Throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks." I think it's clear enough by now that you lack competence at this level and/or are not debating in good faith, so I'm going to stop responding to every inane thing you throw out. I'm going to bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether i am penalized or not, i would like to express my thanks to Mandruss. I had initiated an ongoing discussion about the article on the NPOV board because i wanted more editors to participate in this very controversial and sensitive page since more editor participation was the best way to reduce or eliminate any bias in the article in my opinion. The fact that Mandruss has brought this issue to ANI will ensure that more editors will examine the article for any bias and this is something that makes me happy. I would encourage anyone looking at the article to not just look at the article talk page but also the discussion related to the article at the NPOV board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Issues_at_a_Donald_Trump_page Soham321 (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Response by User:Bastun

Well, that's some wall of text to wake up to! It "keeps" on being said here that I "keep" disrupting the talk page and disrespecting process and that CaroleHenson and Mandruss "keep having to explain things" to me. I've participated in some discussions, and in response to my question about the RFC's validity, Mandruss replied "Jack Upland stated an argument in a !vote in an RfC. I don't think he meant to challenge the very legitimacy of the RfC. I have never seen anyone do that until now. It's called content dispute." - which I said I didn't understand. I got no further response "explanation."

• FWIW, bar two edits to the Donald Trump article (one to change a heading level, one to add a link to a section's "See also"), I've not actually edited any of the Trump articles, at least over my last 500 edits, going back to early August.
• I have participated in or raised, I think, three discussion on the talk pages of the main article and the sexual misconduct allegations article:
  • I wondered why, on the Donald Trump article, it was more noticeable on the TOC that Trump had had some minor involvement in World Wrestling Entertainment some years ago, compared to the coverage of the Bush tape and sexual misconduct allegations, which aren't visible in the TOC. I changed the heading levels of the latter, it's since been reverted, seemingly on the grounds that the Bush tape and sexual misconduct allegations are only a subsection of the 2016 presidential campaign. I've left it alone since.
  • Several days ago, I questioned how or why a small group of editors had come up with their own list of "approved" reliable sources (that - at least at one point - excluded The Guardian, an award-winning broadsheet!) and were then using the percentage of coverage from that "approved list" given to the child rape allegations to justify excluding them from Wikipedia on the grounds of WP:BALASP, as, in my opinion, WP:V applied and WP:RS was satisfied.
  • When the RfC began, I participated, but then, thinking more on it, I began to wonder how an article on the "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations" could stand over itself when it excludes the most serious of those allegations - the only one that I'm aware of that is actually due a court hearing!
• Apparently, there are three possible outcomes to the RFC: Mandruss can "lose", in which case WP covers the allegation. Or Mandruss can "win" and WP doesn't cover the allegation. Or Mandruss can "draw" and WP still doesn't cover the allegation.
• With regard to the RfC: As stated above, the most serious of the allegations against Trump is covered by multiple reliable sources - it satisifes WP:V and WP:RS. Excluding an allegation that Trump repeatedly raped a minor (sometimes in the company of a convicted paedophile) and that this allegation is due to be heard in court from the very article covering the allegations of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump because of "no consensus" or even a majority of editors saying it should be excluded would be censorship - and last time I checked, WP is not censored.
• Bringing someone to AN/I to seek a block or a topic ban - say, an editor with over 10 years experience and a clean block log - because they've raised two valid concerns about what they believe to be an abuse of process? Really...? I would suggest Mandruss and CaroleHenson look at the sheer volume of text they've added to the respective article talk pages, each others' talk pages, their "approved reliable sources" page - and then maybe read WP:OWN... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Bastun, you're right that you don't have a long-standing presence on the page.

I am not used to people who make accusations - don't respond to the feedback - and then make them again. Call me crazy, I call that disruptive. You were involved in three separate conversations about the same topic.

In all fairness, you may not have seen the postings on the article talk page. I do see that part of the issue was that you were getting pulled into it by Soham321, which some might call canvassing.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Diffs, please? You appear to not understand WP:CANVASS - I have had no contact from Soham321 whatsoever, except for when they let me know on my talk page that I'd got their username wrong (and they subsequently replied to Mandruss on my page, after this ANI was posted). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I posted a request subsection below this one to try to work out the issues, and so I prefer not to respond to this right now, and hopefully never. I will say that if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have added that because it's not language that furthers cooperation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

As I've said, that is not my RfC. It's a Wikipedia RfC. I can't "win", "lose", or "draw" that RfC. I simply have the same !vote that everyone else does. The fact that you see this as "Mandruss's RfC", simply because I did the edit that created it, may have a lot to do with your failure to understand the situation. You simply can't challenge an RfC because it, pending its resolution, keeps out content that you want in. I have repeatedly tried to explain this to you and Soham321, and yet you both keep claiming that the content should be re-added. Do you really not understand how RfCs and WP:CONSENSUS work, after some 10 years and 9,000+ edits? Do you not understand that the out-of-process "content should be re-added" argument is what is illegitmate, not the RfC? Where is this "abuse of process"? Are you claiming that I (we) abused the system by starting an RfC to resolve a content dispute after previous attempts had failed to resolve it? Because you strongly disagree with our content arguments? I am genuinely bewildered that you could actually be here defending your actions. Much of your statement has nothing at all to do with this complaint, so I'll ignore it. For whatever it's worth, I'll state that Soham321 has been the more disruptive of the two of you, but that doesn't make your position any more valid, and your support for their position didn't help in that regard. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine, change "Mandruss's RfC" to "the RfC initiated by Mandruss" wherever it occurs - the meaning is the same and clearly what I meant. "You simply can't challenge an RfC because it, pending its resolution, keeps out content that you want in." Correct. That's not what I'm doing. I'm challenging an RfC because it's attempting to exclude content on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, despite it being covered by WP:V and cited by nultiple WP:RS, which is a breach of our WP:N policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd further point out that the use of an RfC to discuss whether or not to censor verified reliably sourced content would - if it's in order and if process were followed to the latter - result in no decision until after the U.S. presidential election. Nice filibuster. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RfCs do not attempt to do anything, other than ask questions and solicit responses. If your assertion is correct, the closer will close in your favor. Again, you don't get to kill an RfC because you don't like the good-faith questions asked. If you disagree with that, please provide a pointer to the policy that supports you. I don't see that in WP:CONSENSUS or WP:RFC. You have criticized me incorrectly for making up my own rules, and you are doing exactly that. My position is supported by Wikipedia policy, yours is your opinion about how you think things should work. Who has the stronger position? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice filibuster. As you well know, I tried to expedite that RfC to 4 days and I withdrew that after it met resistance from two experienced editors and got no support. Why did I do that, if my intent was to keep the content out until after the election? Can you answer that please? Like Soham321, your AGF failure is completely out of control, disruptive, and destructive. You are determined to believe I am acting in bad faith, and you are completely blind to anything that contradicts that belief. Confirmation bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest Mandruss and CaroleHenson look at the sheer volume of text they've added to the respective article talk pages, each others' talk pages, their "approved reliable sources" page - and then maybe read WP:OWN. Bloody incredible. Show me in WP:OWN where it has anything to do with the "volume of text they've added to the respective article talk pages, each others' talk pages". There is no limit on contribution to an article. WP:OWN is about preventing others from contributing to an article, and you don't have to read any further than its nutshell for that. You appear to have memorized a bunch of shortcuts without reading and absorbing any of the material written there, devising your own personal system of Wikipedia p&g around those shortcuts. Sort of like when Soham321 claimed that NPOV means parity. Bad faith or Wikipedia:Competence is required, which is it? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This "completely out of control, disruptive, and destructive" (destructive - really?!) editor, with his 11 years and 9,000 edits of participation and zero blocks is done, and will happily wait for an admin to rule. Have a nice day. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Noted that you did not respond to any of my points. Destructive, yes. That repeated AGF failure greatly diminishes the productivity in article talk. It greatly worsens the hostile environment and reduces the ability for people to work together, and the article can't help but suffer as a result. Destructive. That is intuitively obvious to most. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Request

I posted a message on my talk page in an attempt to come to a peaceful solution. I am guessing that it's at least as difficult for you as it is for me, but I also see the passionate energy for a good article and I loved the box that possibly one of you posted on Neutrality, which is what gives me the greatest hope.

Right now, I agree with you Soham321, to not close the ANI on reliable sources, per your comments in the edit summary about the collapse box. I think my comments were removed in the process, I'll check that out and make an update, if I cannot find them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I was asked to take a look at this discussion. I am WP:INVOLVED at several other Trump-related pages. But I have not participated in the one being discussed here (Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations) and I have not been following it. And as far as I know I have had little or no interaction with the four parties discussing here. So maybe I can be permitted a comment: I don't see anything actionable here. I would suggest this report be closed, with a recommendation that the parties calm down, that they concentrate on the content of the article rather than each other's behavior, and that they try to work together to come up with some kind of wording that is acceptable to everyone. (User:CaroleHenson has made an admirable attempt on her talk page to start such a dialogue.) I would also suggest that everyone thank the deity of their choice that the election will be over in two weeks. MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that a respected admin does not think rampant AGF failure and disrespect for Wikipedia process is actionable. I had worked up the ban/block proposal for a separate subsection, but I'll cancel that. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN There are open issues on the article talk page regarding a {{Neutrality}} tag that Soham321 has applied to the article and getting movement on a NPOVN item she opened, but refuses to comment on the article at all - even on my talk page - until the ANI is closed. How do we go about making that happen?

Soham321 posted a note on their page, but has been exceedingly clear that I should not talk on the user talk page - which seems to box me in - or do I mean out. A note there for me to read but not respond to, but then Bastun and Mandruss don't see her comment. It is forward movement, though, there was "a" response. Help, please. Really, this kind of behavior is ok? Any olive branch I've sent out, I've been clunked over the head with it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN - Soham321, apparently encouraged by the lack of action here, continues to disruptively disrespect the legitimacy of the RfC. This needs action soon. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I posted a comment on their talk page[5] and they collapsed it referring to me as a "troll".[6] I have never trolled in my Wikipedia career. WP:BATTLEGROUND applies. That's a policy vio as you know. Word "troll" removed 26 minutes later,[7] and 21 minutes after I posted this initial comment.[8] User's behavior shows marked improvement when they are at risk of sanction. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It was not, and is not, my intent to act as an administrator here - because of my involvement at other Trump articles. I will not be taking any admin actions here. I commented as a neutral observer, offering my evaluation for admins to take into account. My evaluation of this report was, and still is, that it is not so much an issue of Wikipedia behavior as it is a catfight over content, transferred and escalated from the article talk page to ANI. The result here is a wall of text that no admin, or even bystander, has so far wanted to wade into. The accusations being flung around by both sides - "disruptive", "obstinately insisting", "failure of AGF", "bad faith attempt to end-run the ArbCom remedies", "bias", "lack competence", "completely out of control" - are not helping. "Troll" was certainly an unwarranted escalation.

Meanwhile I was amused - while you guys yell at each other and try to get each other topic-banned - to see the Washington Post describe that very talk page as a "somewhat orderly debate" where people can have "mostly sane, mostly productive conversations that mostly converge to a version of the truth."[9] Does that not shame any of you into trying to work this out - go back to the talk page and try to engage in good faith, maybe settle on some kind of compromise wording that would mention the disputed material in a way you all most of you could agree on? I actually do see Bastun and CaroleHenson doing a little of that today - having a cordial discussion, trying to understand the other person's point of view. That's what I recommend. The alternative is for ANI to just exclaim with Mercutio, "A plague on both your houses!" MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, I made one revert on the talk page of the article (which involved removing Carole's collapse tag in which some important posts of Bastun were being collapsed) after more than 24 hours of not touching the article or the article talk page, leaving a detailed edit summary, and i was immediately accused of disruptive editing on my talk page by Mandruss. Note that i have not touched the article talk page after my revert was reverted by Carole. I did close Mandruss's comment on my TP using the words 'troll message' on the banner, but soon realized my error and removed the "troll" word from the banner on my own. This is not about me or Mandruss; it is about the elections and WP's responsibility not to let itself be used by editors who, consciously or unconsciously, indulge in propaganda when they remove verified content in RS pertaining to upcoming elections, by first declaring the RS is actually not RS and then start an RfC so that the RS cannot be used in the main article until after the elections are over. This is an important issue and it cannot be dismissed in a cavalier manner. My position is that unless The Guardian article (and other references which endorse or corroborate material in The Guardian article) is permitted to be used as a reference, the NPOV tag must remain in the article. Soham321 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, the essential point is that we tried for, I don't know exactly, some 8 or 9 days to reach a resolution on the question, without success. In my experience RfC is the only way out of such an impasse, so I started one. And I was accused of gaming the system by starting the RfC. Since, under ArbCom, that meant that the content stays out pending consensus, and since my suggestion to expedite the RfC was rejected, that obviously meant I was gaming in order to keep the Trump-negative content out until after the election. What other possible explanation could there be? </sarcasm> The fact that I have finally given in and stated unequivocally that I am a strong Trump opponent, therefore acting against my own bias, was meaningless to these people who see bad faith everywhere they turn when it goes against their bias. This is not a cat fight about content, it's a battle between respect for established process and disrespect for it. I would sincerely like to see an admin stand up for process here, and for WP:AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And I conspicuously omitted Bastun from my ban/block proposal. I agree they have become far more constructive since this opened (although they have not stricken their challenge to the RfC as I requested). Soham321 has only doubled down. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As for wall of text, I totally agree. First, there is zero chance of admin action without a thorough opening complaint. Then the defendant(s) are allowed to add as much as they want to the wall, about anything whether related to the complaint or not. They are allowed to bring the content dispute, adding more to the wall. They are allowed to make whatever boomerang claims they want, when that could be handled in a separate complaint against me. Should I not respond to their fallacious points? And then they are allowed to respond to mine, rinse, repeat. There is never anything like a moderator to keep things from spinning out of control here. Of course there's a wall of text! Please explain how these things should be resolved otherwise. Your statement would appear to say that ANI is a complete waste and should be scrapped. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Melanie, I think that for the most part it has been a good working arrangement on the talk page. I even posted a message called "Thankfulness" for the group. In the end, we've gotten to where we need to be. But it's not where Soham321 wants the article to be. She raised a dispute and wasn't happy that noone supported her and it has all be downhill from there. Is the rhetoric making the situation worse. Yes, I am sure it is. I really question whether you understand what has been happening here. I don't know that I've ever been this disheartened working on something at WP. The team as a whole does get along well, it gets through conversations with differing views, but this has become really difficult. And needlessly so.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

wasn't happy that noone supported her If Soham is the ONLY person objecting, and everyone else has reached a consensus, that need not affect the article. Consensus has to be clear but it does not have to be unanimous. I have not studied the conversation in depth but I am of the impression that there were other people who agreed with Soham; is that not correct? One person cannot block a valid consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, MelanieN the dispute that I think really started the snowball - no one agreed with her - it's in the archives. Yes, people agree with her on the Jane Doe issue, which is chronicled in the RfC. I have no issue whatsoever with her position about the content. Not in the least, it actually fits my personal point of view.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, it is difficult to believe that Carol has reached consensus with Bastun considering she keeps collapsing his posts on the talk page. Soham321 (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Would it help you, MelanieN, if I gave you information about the conversations that have led to this place from the archives, NPOV page, and the current talk page. From your statements, it would lead me to conclude that it's ok to tag articles, open NPOV issues, and ping in people to repeat existing conversations -- but not work to resolve any of these issues. Instead, avoids discussions to try to remedy them. Is that an inappropriate conclusion?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Carole and Mandruss, you are talking to the wrong person - except to the extent that what you say to me might be informative to the uninvolved admin(s) who will ultimately close this discussion. And no, for God's sake please don't upload the whole conversation. This report is already so dense that no uninvolved person has so far been willing to comment on it. If there are diffs that show unreasonable behavior and support the call for a topic ban, they are appropriate - but they should have been posted at the beginning of this report, not after thousands of words have already been expended. Or at least in the (so far unsupported) call below for a topic ban. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And BTW Mandruss, I am not sure what you meant by this: "Soham321, apparently encouraged by the lack of action here, continues to disruptively disrespect the legitimacy of the RfC." How so? Soham has not posted at that talk page since the 24th. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Soham321 started a subsection below about "Gaming the system", meaning the RfC. How is that NOT disrespecting the legitimacy of the RfC? Since my content argument is invalid in their view, and I started the RfC, the RfC is therefore illegitimate. Is that consistent with policy or your experience? I certainly hope not. I followed dispute resolution as described in WP:DR, I respected the ArbCom remedies because I believe in respecting ArbCom remedies, and they don't like the result. Full stop. That is all this is about. The article is under DS and we don't need to endure this disruption for days before an admin gets around to looking into this, then giving up because of the wall of text and declaring it just another content squabble brought to ANI. This is truly maddening, Melanie. Truly. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That's why I started the subsection below: inviting administrators and other uninvolved editors to a place where they can comment without becoming part of the walls of text. I think that's the only way this report will ever reach closure. It has already run on for days without outside input, partly because it appears so forbidding. I do hope the rest of you will respect the section heading and let them (hopefully more than one person will respond to the invitation) discuss the situation calmly among themselves, without getting "piled on" - as they can see has happened to the only uninvolved person who has so far dared to comment here. If you want to make a point to them, make it in this section and ping them. Let their discussion stay uncluttered. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Propose ban or block for Soham321

Soham321's disruptive disrespect for the Jane Doe RfC continues after MelanieN's assessment of nothing actionable. Propose a topic ban on U.S. politics—or a temporary block—at least through the November 8 election—for Soham321. Collaborative editors at that article will appreciate it. I remind folks that this article is under discretionary sanctions. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR well evident in this complaint. Evidence ignored to date because there is too much of it.

• Support ban as proposer — as I think this is the less severe of the two sanctions. I see no reason this editor could not edit peacefully and constructively if the political element is removed. If the block is the less severe, I support it instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like uninvolved Admins and editors who have gone through this discussion to consider whether Mandruss is guilty of WP:SANCTIONGAME, specifically the first point of WP:SANCTIONGAME which says "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." Soham321 (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like that as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Gaming the system

I would like to address a larger issue which goes beyond petty finger pointing.

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to three very important posts (in my opinion) of Bastun on the TP of the Trump page under consideration. (Two of these had been collapsed by Carole, the collapse tag removed by me, and then re-added by Carol.) The diffs of these posts are: diff 1 and diff2 and diff3. In diff1, Bastun writes:

I would contend that the ability to remove any content one doesn't like, effectively forcing a debate for re-inclusion, even without opening an RfC, is a pretty potent tool for anyone who wants to keep material out of view in the run up to the election. I am not accusing you of this, I'm pointing out that it's possible. I'm not sure that's what Arbcom intended.

In diff3, Bastun writes:

So, keep out verifiable content until after the election?

This is a perfect example of misrepresentation of an issue by using a short sound-byte to make it appear that I am questioning why verifiable inforation is added to the article... and not providing the background in this conversation that followed it. I could go on.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is "gaming the system" whereby WP can consciously or unconsciously be used as a tool for political propaganda needs to be studied more carefully. I would support the placement of the "NPOV" tag in the main article until the November elections because of the fact that Mandruss has not allowed the usage of a Guardian article as reference (first by declaring it is not RS--diffs given by me in my earlier posts in this discussion); and subsequently by opening a questionable RfC (reasons for why it is a questionable RfC have been given by Bastun) pertaining to the contents of The Guardian article which means the Guardian article cannot be used as a reference until the RfC has been closed. And this is the Guardian article which Mandruss has not permitted to be used as a reference in the main article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thoroughly addressed. WP:IDHT. WP:AGF. Using RfC to resolve content dispute after failure to reach consensus in open discussion is not gaming. It is how Wikipedia works. WP:CONSENSUS. WP:RFC. Is there such a thing as counter-boomerang? Should be. For Soham321's information, I didn't invent the ArbCom restriction that disputed content stays out pending consensus to include it. I merely respect it. I suggest they learn the same respect for ArbCom. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I had used the words "consciously or unconsciously" in my comment; i am not accusing you of not acting in good faith. Soham321 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. You don't get to create a subsection containing the word "gaming" and then claim that you are not accusing anyone of bad faith. Gaming is bad faith. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am making a distinction between "deliberate gaming" and "inadvertent gaming". One might be gaming the system without realizing one is doing so. Soham321 (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a new concept to me and, I suspect, to Wikipedia. One might consistently fail to AGF without realizing one is doing so. If one repeatedly misjudges things like CANVASS, they might well see bad faith. Hence, competence is required. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

More evidence of WP:SANCTIONGAME behavior from Mandruss. Also, note what Bastun has written earlier in this thread about Carole's lack of understanding of WP:CANVASS. Soham321 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done responding to you. Admins can deal with this or not, I no longer GAF. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please describe a hypothetical content dispute, removing your favored content pending consensus to include, that would meet with your approval and be respected by you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, since you are once again leveling accusations at me, has it ever been in your interest to solve a problem? You add a neutrality tag - and say it's because there are inconsistencies - but it's really about content that wasn't added and the dispute you raised on the talk page did not result in your desired outcome - and that there is a Jane Doe content dispute. There was also an attempt to connect that to the use of reliable sources, but when that has been explained - that it was originally prepared to use better sources to solve a POV and RS claim, NO response.

So, you posed a NPOV issue - and I have not seen you do anything to work towards a resolution or respond to suggestions to ID a reviewer to resolve the issue.

There's discussion about the neutrality banner - which for the life of me I don't understand - and do you engage in conversation when I try and break down the issue - because you haven't responded to other attempts. Do you respond? NO

You seem to be very upset about the removal of the Jane Doe content, but don't keep your attention focused in that section - but bring it up elsewhere. Why not wait for the RfC issue to resolve, or keep your comments focused there? Why ping people to support your position when you are giving them half-truths and distorted information? My growing theory is its' because you don't want to solve problems, you want to MAKE problems.

You say that you want me removed from the project, but even though I have tried to work constructively with you, I have seen VERY little of that in return. There is explanation of why certain changes are made per guidelines, and you ignore the feedback. You've ignored issues that you've created and said you didn't - when you were given very specific detail.

You accuse, avoid, wait, accuse, avoid, wait - repeat.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to go into the archives, talk page, NPOV page and back up my statements. It will take awhile, but if that will help further this discussion, I will do it. We so need to move on.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, would it help if I drafted an executive summary, which Soham321 and Mandruss could edit - so that we get down to the essential issues? I'm not sure how Bastun is interested, but of course, he could weigh in.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It might. It would have helped even more to have had that at the beginning. Personally, before I make a report at AN or ANI, I spend hours, up to a full day, drawing up the "indictment", so it is clear and well organized, with details and diffs, and focused only on the behaviors I believe are clearly sanctionable - or at least problematic enough to require admin intervention. I don't see how Soham or Bastun could be involved in drawing it up; presumably this is your case for why Soham should be sanctioned, or why admin action of some kind is needed. (If you are not asking for admin action of some kind, why are you here at ANI?) You might want to draw it up somewhere else, perhaps in a sandbox, and then post it here as a clear and concise request for action. Such a clear and concise request has certainly been lacking up to now. If that is not your goal, it's still possible that a clear summary of the situation might help people to pick their way through to the essential issues - although again, if you aren't asking for admin action, you're in the wrong place. Don't try to write it here, that will only add to the walls of text. Agree on it somewhere else, and post it here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

MelanieN, Let me take your comments and draft a summary of the issues on a sandbox page. Can I have several hours, then, to reflect on your input and do it right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN and CaroleHenson: - All the evidence necessary is right here in this complaint.

• Repeated failure to AGF. Again and again, clearly evident here. Soham321 eventually wised up and said they were not accusing me of bad faith - in a section titled "Gaming the system". Hello? Anybody paying attention here?
• Repeated misunderstanding or misrepresenation of policy; e.g, a lot of commenting in article talk is WP:OWN behavior (not). I could list more, but it's all right there in the record.
• Assertion that two editors who often see eye-to-eye in opposition to these users, while sometimes disagreeing with each other, is "tag-teaming" (not).
• Implication that a side collaboration on the development of an RfC, in a sandbox, is somehow improper or evidence of bad faith (not).
• Took an out-of-context statement by user BullRangifer and presented it as support for their position here. BullRangifer denied such support on their user talk page and then in this complaint.
• Repeated failure to respond to counters to the spurious arguments.
• Persistent claims that an RfC is not legitimate because they don't like the content argument of the editor who started the RfC. A subsection created calling the RfC "Gaming the system".
  

How much more do we need, Melanie? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd challenge anyone to determine whether CaroleHenson supports or opposes Trump based on her edits. All I can determine is support for process. Mandruss as he admits argues here against his personal interest. I'd trust either of these editors explicitly in an article (and topic) plagued by partisan gamesmanship. Take that for what it's worth. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

James J. Lambden here you go: diff1 and diff2. Relevant extract from Carol's Teahouse post: "This DT article has seen pressure from what seem to be supporters to add content favorable to Trump." Relevant extract in her post on her TP when she pinged an uninvolved editor for "help": "I'm working on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article and there is a push to get the article slanted in Trump's favor." Soham321 (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's the comment I posted on your talk page:

I see now why you are upset. I should have not worded the Teahouse posting that way and I had not remembered that I had. That was wrong. I wouldn't have considered it canvassing, but the way it's worded could surely have been taken that way. I apologize for that. My unfortunate wording might be the reason it was deleted before anyone could respond.

The person that I was pinging is not an American - and has no horse in the race and I knew would not get involved in the discussion, that's why I chose them. I still do not believe this was canvassing.

Regarding the Teahouse posting, you have helped me to ensure that any postings that I make in a public arena are as measured and objective as if I was posting to the article talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, there is more to this long story. I used unfortunate words, for what it's worth - if there had been someone trying to push a Gloria Aldred, Hillary Clinton, etc. position, I would have likely accidentally used those words, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Added a word and underlined it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: At some point of time, an Admin needs to explain WP:CANVASS to CaroleHenson; she is now indulging in this in the middle of an ANI discussion involving her: diff. Relevant quote of Carole posted on Mandruss's talk page: "If there's anything that I can do to support your points through the ANI process, let me know." Soham321 (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully support the above. I invite any admin or other uninvolved to look at that, judge whether that is CANVASS, and judge whether or not the above claim supports or does not support my WP:CIR claim. Yes please. This user pretty much self-convicts, which is what makes this entire situation so disgusting or comical, depending on my varying mood. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have stopped "watching" this page, per discussions below, Soham321, but you pinged me in: 1) I see that you wrote this after the message that I posted on your talk page and about the same time I posted the message to Mandruss. 2) I disagree that it is inappropriate to not leave Mandruss 100% in the lurge - after I piggy backed on this ANI, 3) regarding canvassing, you may want to re-check your own talk page about canvassing claims. 4) I have never been accused of it before you - but then I have never been accused of a lot of things except by you, 5) I hadn't used the label "canvassing" but I certainly described your behavior of pinging people giving them partial and distorted information (see the lasted that I am aware of from an reaction by someone you had done that do on the article in the RfC section of this ANI). Based upon your inability to understand the spirit in which I posted the message on your page, I will no longer respond to your pings. I hope this clarifies for some the nature of the way that you operate and your complete inability to act in good faith, even when you got your publically stated wish when I summarized input from others and collapsed my outreach.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• In his post above, Mandruss claims that i was the one who accused him of WP:OWN behavior. Mandruss is mistaken. It was Bastun who indicated this in the last sentence of his first post in this discussion. Soham321 (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

  Good job, you found the one mistake in my argument. Well there goes my credibility. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if the recent comments were sufficient or if I should still do the executive summary. It seems like the conversation is devolving, so I'll go ahead. It will likely take me several hours.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This topic has totally exhausted and disheartened me and have had a flare up of my disability. I need more time to regroup and get this done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how one can present a case on a pattern of behavior covering more than a week and comprising hundreds of talk edits, with the defendant allowed to throw out whatever crap they wish, requiring us to respond to each bit of crap with diffs and clarification of the distortions—without creating the wall of text that results in the complaint being dismissed as TL;DR. Soham321 has repeatedly shown at a minimum significant WP:CIR issues, that is very clear in this complaint. Repeatedly, they make patently false p&g arguments, I shoot them down, they ignore my response, and this is buried in the WOT never to be seen again.
I think an interested admin could randomly choose two claims from each side and investigate them or ask for evidence on only those claims. Determine which claims of that small random sample are accurate and which are flimsy distortions of the reality. Use that information to inform your views of the editors involved and thus of the entire situation. For Soham321's claims, I would suggest their boomerang list. Admins MelanieN and Drmies already know the veracity of item 3 there—no investigation necessary.
Has anyone noticed the one uninvolved opinion?
I simply am not going to spend a couple of tedious and unpleasant days assembling the full-blown legal case that seems to be required here. If there is no action here, the disruption will probably continue and I will have two choices: (1) move on, leaving other reasonable editors to deal with the disruption, or (2) stick around and be transformed into the bad-faith editor I am accused of being, forced to fight fire with fire.
I don't know what CaroleHenson's plans are as to producing this evidence—I wish her luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Right now, I am so disheartened, working on the executive summary meant going back through the issues again and it has worn me out. I love doing a good job and the last day or so I have not been at my best. There IS a great team that has worked on this article, and I am still very thankful to have worked with them. This situation, though, is mind-numbingly frustrating. I have not experienced anything like it over the past five years.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ideally all election related articles would be locked until after the election. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You must be joking. EEng 19:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I dunno - maybe you're more optimistic than me, but are you expecting any marked improvement to the candidate pages? I'm expecting exactly this type of behavior to intensify. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I went off half-cocked when I said what I said. I now realize that by locked you mean full protection (i.e. only admins can edit), not a "complete freeze"; full protection is indeed a reasonable possibility, though I doubt a likely one, especially on a blanket basis in a large topic area. (You probably should stop saying "locked" because it's not really a term we use here on WP, and you risk confusing the slightly demented such as myself.) EEng 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes by locked I meant protected. That way proposed edits must go through the edit request process, gain consensus, and then be added by admin. I also doubt this scenario is likely, although it would greatly prevent the disruption that is sure to come the next few days. I chose the word locked because I picture that big lock icon on the top of protected pages, but I will be sure to say protected from now on. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This section reserved for comments from administrators or other uninvolved parties only

• I am both an administrator and uninvolved, and I wish the next administrator or other uninvolved party good luck trying to read this. Have fun, Drmies (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Onogurs

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

---

Can someone please check what is going on here? See also here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Edit warring, likely socking. Already blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

violation of wp:agf and wp:civil by Ritchie333

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

---

During the tempblock of mine, when i was requesting for either unblock or shortening of block length, the admin Ritchie333 said something to me about "not to troll the reference desk". i have taken offense to this particular expression as it implies the image of me doing it, which was never the complaint against me. see my talk page as evidence.i am taking all possible measures regarding this violation of civility.Minimobiler (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You specifically said you wanted to be unblocked because i have questions to ask in refdesk, and if this is the type of question you have in mind than Ritchie333's comment that We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to troll the reference desk is a straightforward statement of fact. This is an academic project, not a chatroom; nobody is going to sanction him for this. If you haven't already, I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental core policies. ‑ Iridescent 18:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: questions far more mundane than the one you showed was posted in refdesks in the past, by others. they were given such "chastisement"?Minimobiler (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologise for causing offence, but Iridescent has accurately described the situation. I'm not a big fan of the reference desk I'm afraid, it's not really part of our core purpose. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I am in a . . ...discussion

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

---

Police Lives Matter sign in Pasco County, Florida during the United States presidential election, 2016

at Black Lives Matter about this picture. Aside from the fact that it does not really fit in the article I said that in any case I didn't thnk that anything this blatantly sectarian related to the US presidential election should be posted and the reply i received is, (I paraphrase) "What rule says that?" So, is there such a rule about not allowing campaign material being posted? Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the definition of a content dispute and does not belong here. You could try the WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Also, please read WP:DISPUTE. Kleuske (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I will look at those, but put another way, there is no generic rule against posting election propaganda on wikipedia? Carptrash (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In particular, with regard to the coming election in the United States, both normal administrative remedies and discretionary sanctions are available, based on WP:ARBAP2, but the latter is only after formal notification. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit WP with Opera latest stable beta crashes on preview page

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

---

I thought I should report this problem. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.7.12.194 (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

is this really the proper forum for this technical complaint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP EDIT BOY (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@104.7.12.194: not sure if pings work for IPs, but WP:VPT would be a better place for this. ansh666 05:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Incivility by Widr (Administrator)

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

---

It is sad that I have to report today such an esteemed editor, but I feel it must be done. Yesterday I reverted an edit by Widr from August 2015 at Camdean. I posted on his talk page and he said that the offending text that I restored was a copyright violation [10]. I asked for an explanation and told him that I would report him to ANI if he restored the edit [11]. He then sais that "The "Education" section is a word-to-word copyvio, the rest is unsourced. Have fun at ANI. I have a feeling it wouldn't be your first visit there." While I sppreceate the explanation about the copyright violation, the rest is just taunting. I am requesting a review of his administrator rights. While it may make sense that this is not my first account, I read Wikipeidia: The missing manual before I started editing [12]. Thank you for your time. Moxhay (Talk * Contribs) 13:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Moxhay:. Three things. Firstly, welcome to wikipedia. Secondly, the text you inserted into the Camdean article is a word-for-word copyvio of this: so it has to be removed. As it has been (again). Repeated violations of Wikipedia's copyrigt policy generally results in adminstartive action, so be mindful. Thirdly, his 'taunting' was probably based on the fact that if you are, as you say, a new user, then you would be unliely to know of AN/I at all; but if, as you say, you have read it in the Missing Manual then you will be aware it is clear that this board is for 'only serious, repeat attacks'- which obviously does not apply here. I dare say his suggestion stemmed from such three-day old accounts making edits such as nominating articles for deletion, merging pages, and uploading non-free images with the correct rationale, all with the use of very exact Wiki mark-up and edit-summaries. FYI. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this a troll? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking, or a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I had a look There is nothing Widr has done wrong, and I think this report should be closed as what he removed was PROVEN to be a copyvio by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Class455 (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Took too long over my post  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As a minor aside, I will mention that it would be a very good idea, going forward, for Widr to use a clear and specific edit summary if s/he removes any copyvios from articles going forward. Widr's edit to remove the original copyvio just uses the very vague-bordering-on-misleading summary "(trim)", which really doesn't explain the rationale behind the edit. It doesn't have to be long and wordy; a simple "removed copyvio" or even just "copyvio" would avoid confusion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, while it's great when people are hunting copyvios, remember that they are a serious thing but other editors aren't magic. Unless they're the ones who added the copyvio, the often aren't going to be able to know something was a copyvio and so should never be re-added if they edit summary doesn't say so and will instead assume such changes are subject to normally editing. Sometimes it could even be months or years later. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Since everyone isn't done, I reverted my close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This user is almost 100% a troll, and likely a block evader of some sort as well. Actually, it seems like this user is interested in editing articles related to the U.S. state of Maine. I have a recollection of Widr blocking some users/IP's that had made serial attacks to Maine related articles in the recent past. This is just one of many of them, (I know there's more, but couldn't find them) but maybe this isn't related at all, I dunno... Since this user is very new, Widr's comment, Have fun at ANI. I have a feeling it wouldn't be your first visit there. is totally justified, and I agree with him that they have probably been here before... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP! Do you believe this warrants a SPI? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 00:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: Possibly, but I don't know who the master account would be if a SPI were to be made for this. But it's pretty obvious, and what Widr was most likely getting at here, is that this user has probably known the ins and outs of Wikipedia for much longer than from the duration from when their account was created to now, and how this user even knows what ANI is... I can sense a BOOMERANG coming straight for us...! 2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The user with an interest in Maine is ItsLassieTime. Cough. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Perhaps. However, won't he go to one of the other blocking administrators? I'd suggest a CheckUser check the account due to its first edit, however it is a bad day to catch some Salmon. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I just ran into

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

---

some edits by User: 58.165.14.192, and they were doing that really annoying thing of changing dates. That was at Villasur expedition. They also edited Cutthroat Gap massacre several times, but I am not sure that those edits are bogus. Perhaps someone could take a look at that article and decide to roll the whole thing back, or not. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

First off, when posting here, you are required to inform the user you're complaining about. For fairness, sake, basically. I'll do that for you.

If faced by changes that lack sources, revert per WP:V and leave a note for the user in question, using (for instance) {{uw-unsourced}}. If it's obviously wrong, use {{uw-vandalism}} instead.

Kleuske (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• The changes look well intentioned even if wrong. That census link is broken, so it is hard to verify whether or not 9400 or 10000 is correct, so you can't say they are necessarily wrong. The other changes are not great but not vandalism (group -> war party, etc) And yes, notify next time, and try to discuss with them first if it looks like it might be well intentioned edits. We have a lot of rules around here, they aren't obvious to a newb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

When I find someone, as I did with this editor at Villasur expedition, just changing dates, I'll just fix it. i did not realize that I could communicate with unregistered users, so i the future I'll do that before coming here.Carptrash (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

139.195.2.121

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

---

139.195.2.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For the last two or so days this user has been changing various pages related to the anime Is the Order a Rabbit? without explaining why. I've tried asking about this on their user page both via a custom message and via a template, but the user refuses to explain their edits. Feinoha ^Talk 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears the user has stopped for now. I'll keep a watch on the pages however. Feinoha ^Talk 02:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible misuse of tools by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

---

I am concerned about this edit which Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) made to Template:Infobox former country. It is a significant change that sends predecessor and successor states to the bottom of the template and removed their flags. The thing is, this edit could only be done with the Template editor tool, and everything at WP:TPE suggests that this was a misuse of the tool. There it says that "Changes that significantly affect a template or module's visual appearance to the reader" should ONLY be made "after substantial discussion". This was clearly a change that substantially affected the template's appearance, and there was clearly no substantial discussion. Fut.Perf. had raised the issue twice before (several months ago - see here and here) but had not been able to generate sufficient discussion. However, that is no excuse for misusing the tools - he should have started an RfC. I believe he was acting in good faith, but even the wording of his post on the talk page ("a concrete proposal... I'm going to be bold and implement the following") indicate that he knew he was making a significant change without substantial discussion. Two editors so far have indicate that they would have reverted the change, but they were not able to because they do not have the template editor tool. But again, WP:TPE specifically addresses this: The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply because those without this right are unable to perform the "revert" step.

So here's what I would like to happen: the change should be reverted back to the status quo (Fut.Perf. has refused to do it himself) and an RfC should be started on what to do with predecessor and successor states in the infobox. In order to generate significant discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia:WikiProject History, and possible Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology should be informed. StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

What specific Administrative action are you requesting? Doug Weller talk 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

A reversion of the change back to to the status quo. StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I've stated my position here; there's not much more to add. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see anything about this that warrants administrative action in the slightest, much less a 3-wikiproject RFC procedure. A little perspective, please: it's a formatting change on a template, not regicide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a major formatting change affecting thousands of articles - if it's merely a lack of significant discussion that is getting in the way of the proposed change, shouldn't there be appropriate recruitment? And isn't that what the projects are for? StAnselm (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Skimming infobox talk suggests the issue concerns whether links to predecessor/successor articles use icons or text. The recent edit changed the template to use text such as Sussex rather than a flag (or other icon if no flag is applicable). Is that correct? If so, the change looks highly desirable. At any rate, to show misuse of tools there would need to be a link to a discussion showing a clear consensus that icons are preferred and that the edit disregarded that consensus. The second of the here links in the OP shows what appears to be a serious problem with the old template and fixing that problem is highly desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the bar here is really much higher as the relevant guideline says really clearly. One could make an IAR argument (which is what you are doing by saying that it seems desirable) but WP:TPE is pretty clear here and that's the standard for what's acceptable in this situation, not BRD. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not relying on IAR, I'm asserting (in my "second of the here" above) that there was a real problem, and the edit has fixed it. I'm using "appears" because I haven't studied the problem and it's conceivable that someone can show that it is great to have infoboxes with mysterious empty boxes, although they did not do that in the linked discussion. I know ANI is supposed to ignore content and enforce the rulebook, but do you have an opinion on the benefits of icons vs. text? What if there is no suitable icon? What if very few readers can identify the icon? Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The change was not just about removing the flags - it also involved moving the names to the bottom of the template. In any case, there may well have been a problem with the old template (though if so, it was a "problem" that had been around for years), but there are, I think, several different ways of fixing it. However, that is not really a discussion for this page. StAnselm (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with StAnselm here. There was no consensus for this change and it is exactly what WP:TPE says not to do. A) It is something that requires "substantial discussion" and B) the tools were used to get an upper hand in an editing dispute. The change should be reverted and discussed. As far as I can tell, the problem that this fixes has been around for a while and there was no especially pressing reason to ignore policy. Hobit (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• The complaint and responses are excessively bureaucratic if you remember how TPE came into existence in the first place. This wasn't the type of edit that should have needed approval, if it weren't for the protection getting in the way. Could someone with the tool please revert the edit per the normal and (in this instance) more appropriate WP:BRD? Then there can be a talkpage discussion about whether to reinstate the change.

  TPE should also be given to people more freely if there's a basic sense that they won't break too much stuff with it too often. We got along without it just fine through almost the whole history of the project. The only incidents I can remember that justify it at all were either outright vandalism, or incautious people overestimating their abilities with the very technical aspects of template editing (and those tended to be repeat offenders) resulting in serious breakage. The current TPE documentation calls for too much centralization of control and imho is not in the wiki spirit. It comes across as having been written by a few excessively involved parties, rather than the wider community that is perfectly capable of editing templates without causing problems. So we should roll it back. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

IP, who is "we"? You started editing one day ago. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it's incorrect to characterize this as a "misuse of tools" or even a "possible misuse of tools". It's also patently incorrect to continuously state that "only administrators" can edit the template: any WP:Template editor can edit the template. Fut. Perf carefully explained his rationale and linked to previous discussions [13] before making the change [14]. He also advised StAnselm where to find other competent template editors [15]. StAnselm, create an RfC if you wish, but this ANI filing smacks of disgruntled sour-grapes forum-shopping, and this content dispute should not be here. I recommend closing this thread with no action. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything about "only administrators" can edit the template? Quite clearly this is about the template editor user right, which is a right that admins have, but other editors have it too. But both admins and non-admins are required to use the right in like with WP:TPE. This thread is not about the content dispute - it is about the procedural issue. And indeed, I was not coming here for advice on how to structure the template (the content issue), but to request the initial "bold" edit be reverted (the procedural issue). StAnselm (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"I can't do it since I'm not an admin", "it has a change that has been without a proper consensus, and cannot be reverted by non-admins". ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Just to clarify: there was no misuse of process here. WP:TPE doesn't demand a fully-formed multi-party consensus prior to editing; it explicitly allows to propose an edit and then go ahead if no objections are raised "after a few days". This edit was effectively proposed half a year ago [16], and no objections were raised ever since. It is true that I didn't judge it necessary to wait again when I (re-)proposed this step as a concrete implementation this time – but even if I had, there were no objections forthcoming, so I would have ended up making the edit all the same, if a few days later. The first objection to the edit only came two weeks after my proposal, the first reasoned objection another week later, and both these objections would not have come at all if I had waited on (because the users in question never saw the discussion but were only alerted to it after seeing the change in effect). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree the "after a few days" part is certainly there, but it is clarified in more detail below. In your opinion, which of Wikipedia:Template_editor#When_to_seek_discussion_for_template_changes apply here? I'd argue the first, what do you think? In any case, the entire point of WP:TPE is that you shouldn't be winning an edit war due to having advanced permissions. Given that at least two editors indicated they would have reverted your changes if they could, that is exactly what's happening here. Hobit (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Posting from self-admitted harassment sock removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes two (apparently) IPs here unwilling to use their accounts. Come on folks, sniping from the peanut gallery doesn't carry much weight. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I see you had an opportunity to deal with the socks, could you also answer my question? Hobit (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a level of changes that requires "several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal" but this change was more significant than that - and so it needed substantial discussion. StAnselm (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: To StAnselm and Hobit: As of now I note more editors in favor of the change that Fut. Perf made than against it (I'm counting editors in this thread and on the talk page and also myself, since in the example provided I think his change is superior, and as Johnuniq notes it obviates empty boxes). In the end, it's highly unlikely that any admin or template editor is going to revert Fut. Perf's change without discussion. So in the end, this is nothing more than a content dispute, and if this thread and the example are any indication, one that will end up in favor of Fut. Perf's change. I recommend that no more time be wasted on this on ANI. If an RfC is desired, please institute that. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue at hand is that advanced permissions were used inappropriately and when question the edit wasn't undone. In fact, you just listed all the problems _with_ this edit.
    • "So in the end, this is nothing more than a content dispute" that's exactly right. And it's an admin using a permission bundled with the being an admin to win a content dispute.
    • "In the end, it's highly unlikely that any admin or template editor is going to revert Fut. Perf's change without discussion." Exactly. That's why the discussion is supposed to happen first.

Yes, this may well be the right place to end up. But advanced permissions should not be used to win a content dispute, and that's exactly what has happened here IMO. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have posted a notification about this discussion at the talk page for TPE.Hobit (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Once again, Softlavender, this discussion here is not about whether Future Perfect at Sunrise's version is superior (though I don't think it is) but the way in which that version was/should be established. StAnselm (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I support Future Perfect at Sunrise edit, good call, good edit. I also support closing this thread. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer we wait to close this to A) give FPaS a chance to respond to my question and B) to see if pinging the TPE talk page draws anyone. 48 should be enough for both I'd think. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm, if you want to start an RFC at Template talk:Infobox_former_country, you might as well go ahead and do it without any more waiting. You could also put a {{editprotected}} template there and ask for a revert while the RFC proceeds, though that seems a bit pointy to me by now. It doesn't look like anyone here at ANI is going to revert it. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Future Perfect at Sunrise posted on the talk page at 08:52, 7 October 2016, they changed the template at 09:41, October 7, 2016‎. StAnselm responded at 01:24, 21 October 2016. Even if they had waited a few days as Wikipedia:Template editor#When to seek discussion for template changes suggests, instead of an hour, they still could have implemented the changes. However, Wikipedia:Template editor#Editing disputes gives guidance in regard to these type of situations. Normally, StAnselm would be able to revert the change, but the templates are protected to prevent widespread displays of vandalism. The template editor user right or administrator user right should never be used to gain an upper hand in editing disputes, and they don't give those with them a special authority to unilaterally implement things, rather the technical ability to do so when the community approves it. Whether or not the changes were great, poor, or somewhere in-between, does not matter, we operate on consenus here at Wikipedia. The response by StAnselm was timely enough that a status quo ante should be implemented (i.e. the change should be reverted) until a consensus is established. I don't consider it a misuse of the tools by Future Perfect at Sunrise, but a unilateral change should be reverted if it proves not to be uncontroversial, especially with this timeframe.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oh wow, I didn't catch the part earlier where StAnselm didn't complain about the edit til 2 weeks after it happened. And the change seems to have reasonable support, at least here on ANI. So I'd say if StAnselm still has a problem with it, open an RFC on the template talk page or put up a change request (editprotected) or other proposal about some kind of compromise. There's really nothing for ANI to do so I'd say close with no action. 2 weeks in this situation is long enough to have missed the boat for BRD. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, as stated above, per WP:TPE the usual BRD system does not apply. In fact, I went to the page when I saw the template had changed on a couple of pages I'm familiar with. I went there to read the discussion about why it had been changed, expecting to see a significant discussion, only to discover that it had been done (virtually) unilaterally. StAnselm (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems the only issue presented here is with the implementation of the edit (ie, that there was no large discussion beforehand). TBH, I find this rather troublesome. You've gone all the way to ANI without giving a good reason as to why the edit should not be made, except for procedure (which is entirely subjective to each person). This makes it difficult for me to see how this even would qualify as a content dispute. Please tell me where the issue is with the edit without giving a perfect example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As it stands, I believe it is entirely unreasonable to revert the changes merely for the pretense of procedure, especially in the situation where the edit is fixing a known issue. The other thing that bothers me is describing the change as significant. All the change did was remove the images (the fix) and relocate the text in the template (visual layout change). TPE says that Visual layout changes that are minor but still noticeable, e.g. swapping the order of a few parameters in an infobox are Changes that require at least some discussion, or at least several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal. The fix (replacing images that may not even be there with text) is not much of a significant impact on the visual output. Should you count it as a breaking change, I would think that readability is sufficiently critical to warrant minimal discussion beforehand. Thus, I believe that if you have an issue with the current implementation, you should clearly state why and what you believe will fix the issue. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 01:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note to StAnselm and Hobit: Both of you appear to erroneously believe that, as Hobit puts it above, "it's an admin using a permission bundled with the being an admin to win a content dispute." There is absolutely no evidence for that. Fut Perf made a well-explained change based on prior requests/discussions that he linked to. When his change was questioned two to three weeks later he suggested multiple times to involve other template editors and/or other admins [17], [18], [19]. There is absolutely no evidence that Fut. Perf made his change in order to preempt discussion or prevail over anybody else. Discussion had already occurred; he made the change; he then gave clear instructions of how to adjudicate the matter when questioned. Since it is obvious the change is preferred by a majority of editors, this ANI thread has become unnecessary. Please drop the stick and stop the time-waste here, as ANI is no longer the proper venue for this. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you agree this is a content dispute--you described it as one above. Those objecting to the changes can't revert because doing so involves advanced permissions. There had been a discussion on this same topic and there was no consensus to make the change. Once objections were raised and it wasn't reverted, there was an editor winning a content dispute due to advanced permissions. So yes, I think I've described the situation correctly.

The way Wikipedia's advanced permissions work, in theory (policy) as well as mostly in practice, is that advanced permissions should not be used to win a content dispute. That is what is clearly happening here as we have an editor who objects and would have reverted if they could. And there wasn't anything close to the consensus policy asks ("substantial discussion" is the exact wording) for before making that change. Was it a reasonable BOLD edit? It wasn't within policy as I read it, but it also wasn't unreasonable in my opinion (BRD, IAR, etc.). But once someone objected, the change needs to be reverted and discussed. It's a simple and reasonable request that anyone with the rights to edit the template could have forced by simply reverting. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to read the links I provided: [20], [21], [22]. It would have been adverse for Wikipedia for FP to revert his own change (as he explained on the talk page [23], [24]), so he gave ample instructions three times on how to get the change reverted if a revert was desired. There is no point in reverting against the current WP:CONSENSUS -- do you agree? So what exactly do you want here? A de-sysop? That's not going to happen. For FP to say his change was out-of-process? That's not going to happen, and he has stated why several times [25], [26], [27]. For a consensus judgment that FP did a bad thing or violated a policy? That's not going to happen. For the change to be reverted? That's not going to happen. Thus this ANI thread, which was started in bad faith in the first place, is by now a waste of everyone's time. It has become WP:POINTY in the extreme. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

So Hobit has taken to reverting over the closure of this thread now [28], saying there is some open question he asked me. Hmm, yes, apparently there is, somewhere further up, something about the legalistic interpretation of some verbiage at WP:TPE. I don't find that question very interesting, and it's pretty much moot at this point (when a substantial consensus for the edit in question has effectively formed through endorsements by several users here). Does anybody else besides Hobit think that question still needs an answer? If not, I rather think I'm going to ignore it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. It's asking you a question about the heart of the matter. Admins are really supposed to respond to questions about their tool use even if they don't find it interesting. Hobit (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This section shows significant support for the change by FPaS, and very little objection to the procedure used. That means it is StAnselm and Hobit versus the community, not versus one admin. How about responding to my comment at 06:59, 30 October 2016 above? Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. You already covered it in the links I provided Hobit, who is exhibiting a classic case of WP:IDHT (and IDIDNTREADTHAT), above: [29], [30], [31]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User:PsychopathicAssassin

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

---

This is not the first time, in the article Drake (musician) this user writes "Widespread commercial success" and "Rave reviews", all over it, adding false information and ignores the warning of WP:SYNT, WP:POV and WP:FANCRUFT. He responds with "rihanna info belongs here" and "see my last edit". It's obvious that he's a fan, but he's ignoring everything. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As a miscellaneous point, FWIW, his user page has a user box that claims to have made over 500,000 edits to Wikipedia. Not under this I.D., at least. Hyperbole seems to be his forte. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surpised, there's something wrong.. now in his Talk page he says I "hate the subject". The article is anything but neutral, don't want to enter WP:3RR. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Mass unsourced BLP creation by AvonB221

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked AvonB221 for 31 hours. Materialscientist (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

AvonB221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is (despite being asked to stop) continuing to make hundreds of unsourced BLPs can an admin or somebody step in to stop this as tagging all of the pages they've created for deletion would be excessively cumbersome. Feinoha ^Talk 04:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

He has been blocked-I'm not sure if all of those are BLP's either though-some of those pages linked to a page of rugby players and he added some that said they played over 50 years ago, so they may or may not be alive. Either way it was way too much. They all said the same thing also. Wgolf (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Eodcarl

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

---

It looks like Eodcarl (talk · contribs), who has been a tenuous editor in the past, is trying to boil over an edit war on African-American topics with claims that Nat Turner was never an American at all, along with Denmark Vesey basically "because they were slaves and never attained that status pre-14th Amendment", and has removed "American" and "African-American" references on these articles, along with something about Jesus which I'm sure someone else can explain better, and for it seems like fun, renewed their tiresome four year crusade on Mizzou Arena to remove well-sourced references to its first aborted name (which has already been reduced to the barest of bones to suffice them). Pings to @Malik Shabazz:, @Smmurphy:, @Erp: and @Tgeorgescu: for their views on this. Nate • (chatter) 04:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

And they just attempted to remove this topic. Nate • (chatter) 04:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

My only interest has been accuracy and precision. It has become clear that is not the goal of Wikipedia, at least among the band of bullies like User_talk:Mrschimpf. Don't worry, I am done. Eodcarl (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Imho, what he stated at Talk:Jesus was because he is a true believer in biblical inerrancy and cannot accept that some Christians do not consider the Bible infallible. Nor does he accept that non-Christian scholars have the right to study Jesus and the Bible, or that non-Christian editors have a right to edit Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, Eodcarl is not done. [32][33]. General Ization ^Talk 04:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Bullies prove my point. Eodcarl (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Good lord the arguments he is making on the Jesus talk page. No true Scotsman fallacy anyone? --Tarage (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah okay he's still edit warring. Someone needs to put a stop to this. --Tarage (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion here (and should be in bed). We've had a discussion at Talk:Nat Turner and I have been a bit too long winded. I can't say whether or not Eodcarl's editing has been constructive, although we've reverted each other there, maybe more than should have been done. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Strong words at Talk:Jesus: "moron", "garbage", claims that most US universities are corrupted by "false teachings". Probably WP:NOTHERE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably. But such language is generally permitted on talk pages, and - not being directed at editors - is not considered a personal attack (rightly or wrongly). Indeed, editors are welcome to believe Ehrman is a moron just as they are welcome to believe he is not a moron. Editors are welcome to believe in inerrancy just as they are welcome to believe the Bible contains mistakes. StAnselm (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

He/she is certainly failing to provide the sources to support his/her edits or to defend them in a rational way and blanking the initial notice on this page would seem actionable. However, I would advise people to be careful about triggering the 3-revert rule on themselves. A totally different world view. --Erp (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

He is also refusing to discuss his edits over on Saint Peter. I'll admit I just reverted him a third time, but I frankly have no idea what else I'm supposed to do if the guy is unwilling to discuss things before he continues to edit.Farsight001 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe his intention is to bait regulars into getting themselves blocked. If I am not mistaken, he could be a sockpuppet of Til Eulenspiegel: he is an uncompromising biblical literalist and has a disruptive intervention in articles about African-Americans. Anyway, he is edit warring in several articles at the same time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a more clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE. Where the content is concerned, he doesn't seem to have the slightest concern for this project's purpose, nor it's policies; he is rather here to push an extreme POV born of his religious beliefs because "One must have the Holy Spirit to understand scripture", "It is not possible to know Jesus without being a Christian" and "it is impossible to be a Christian and say God's word has errors". Thus, in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, he is willing to engage in extensive edit warring, subversion of process, personal attacks on other editors, vocal animosity towards atheists and non-Christians anywhere near the topic of Christianity and numerous other forms of disruptive editing.

The red flag that set me to looking into his history here was the fact that he attempted to remove this thread by blanking it from ANI. Having since spent the last hour and a half checking through his recent edits, I am gobsmacked that he has gone as long as he has without being restrained. This is not your average grey-area case of disruption: this editor has blatantly stated that he has no interest in building the encyclopedia, beyond making it conform to his brand of religious dogma, and that he has no interest in applying (or even attempting to understand) how policy or community consensus operate on this project. I provide my absolute support for an indefinite block as the only measure that seems viable in containing this rampage of edit warring, disruption and incivility, conducted for the purpose of a religious fervor that seems unlikely to change; this user is not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia--he's here to preach the gospel, literally. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Eodcarl has been blocked two weeks by Doug Weller. EEng 07:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(EC): A necessary intermediate measure to stop the edit warring, no doubt--but given the user's absolutist religious views, idiosyncratic views on race and nationality, hostility towards conflicting perspectives, animosity towards non-Christians working in Christian topic areas, and general lack of respect for others or for the processes of this project, where they get in the way of his ideology, can we have any reasonable expectation that the behaviour will reform after the block? I'm generally the party arguing for a great deal of leeway, but I think in this case it is only reasonable to conclude that we are holding open the door for more disruption and massive incivility if we don't adopt an indef here. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen this when I blocked. I'll consider an indefinite block. Going out shortly for a few hours to see Dr. Strange in 4Dx, back this afternoon and will look at this discussion again. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• I would support an indef. You have to put your philosophical and/or religious ideas to the side when editing, but this editor is using them as a reason TO edit, which is clearly a case of wp:nothere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Count me in as supporting an indef. The behaviour on Talk:Jesus is completely incompatible with the purposes of this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Indef Hopeless. EEng 09:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Indef. Not necessarily hopeless, but would need to present a persuasive case for being unblocked. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You have the patience of a St. EEng 09:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Indef. I began typing intending to endorse a "let the block expire and see if they can find something uncontroversial to work on" position, but having looked more closely at the history, and threads like this, this, this and this, it's clear that this is someone with an irredeemable "my personal opinions are undisputable truth" mindset, whatever the topic. Much as I dislike de facto bans on long-term editors, I have no confidence that this editor won't immediately start picking fights again as soon as the block expires, and the potential chilling effect that has on other editors in my view outweighs any potential benefits of allowing Eodcarl to continue to edit. ‑ Iridescent 09:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• I would certainly have imposed an indef block myself after examining Eodcarl's behaviour. I see no sign of Eodcarl wanting to be a constructive contributor to an encyclopedia, and every sign of uncompromising literalist religious POV-pushing. In fact, I see uncompromising POV-editing on non-religious topics too - Eodcarl's edit warring on Mizzou Arena has been going on since 2014. The extreme viewpoint shown at Talk:Jesus, for example, clearly indicates no possibility of getting a change of approach here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Indef Eodcarl hadn't ventured far from Kansas/Missouri topics before now (especially as mentioned above, Mizzou Arena, where they wanted to hide the arena's contentious early naming history out of some zealous need to keep the Missouri Tigers history pure here while making the Kansas Jayhawks look worse than the Black Sox), but it's clear that any suggestions to tone down his editing, no matter how civil and kind they are, will be called "bullying" and dismissed; I ventured into this thinking it would be more arena inaneness and an ANI trip for another 48h block, but once I saw what was being done to Nat Turner's article it was beyond even that; denying a person's national heritage, especially that of an 1800's slave who just wanted to be free to be an American in several cases here, is something that is not needed here at all.

The religious article contribs were contentious and blockable just on the face alone (not my usual topic area, thus the deference to others), but wandering into a topic like African American personhood and denying as such throughout several attempts at talk page wars was beyond the pale for me, thus the call to ANI. Equally, the edits by 68.104.85.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to Nat Turner before tonight seem to be ringing pattern bells to them, along with earlier contribs involving congressional districts where Native American figures were taken out without comment...and finally this this attack heading against Malik Shabazz on Talk:Treatment of slaves in the United States in mid-July. If the IP connects, we absolutely do not need this user as a contributor. Nate • (chatter) 09:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Indef. Overdue. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Indef Editing on WP is through compromise and consensus not drawing lines in the sand. Blackmane (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Indef And nothing of value was lost. --Tarage (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Indef Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and conscience however the disruptive closed minded absolutism on display here is not welcome in a collaborative environment which seeks to document academic knowledge. Just as we do not conform to the Muslim stricture against depicting Muhammad, we do not allow a Christian literalist to dictate how we discuss the Bible. Anyone who is arguing content with statements like "If there are errors [in the Gospels] that means there is no God. Only non-Christians claim errors, and they have yet to find one."[34] and thinks only Christians can have an opinion on or knowledge of Christianity - "Is he a Christian? If not, he doesn't matter on this subject. Clearly, you are not a Christian, so why are you camping on this page?" [35] - (Even leaving aside the frank bigotry displayed in such a statement.) simply does not have the collaborative temperament for this project and is not likely to develop it no matter how much time is given. Jbh^Talk 12:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've reblocked him for an indef period, something I almost did last night but commented instead. (I didn't know it would turn into a poll, but hey, consensus is pretty obvious since). I have revoked his talk page access (via WP:IAR) forcing him to appeal to WP:UTRS. The racist comments linked above about "white guilt" was the icing on that cake.[36]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Doug blocked over me, without taking away talk page access. My guess is that it was accidental, I will just leave it to him to decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you restored Eodcarl's talkpage access, which Dennis Brown had revoked 8 minutes earlier [37]. Was that intentional, or was it just an edit conflict of some sort? Softlavender (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Brown That must have been done while I had was blocking with Twinkle, as his text wasn't on the talk page when I blocked, nor was it here. Anyway, I've fixed it removing talk page access and noted the fact that IPs have been vandalising this discussion. Let me know if he attacks anyone using Wikipedia email. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

IP addresses vandalising were Til Eulenspiegel

Pretty obvious when you look at other edit contributions in the ranges, the language used, and geolocation - mobile networks, this time around NYC although usually Virginia through Maryland. Of course the clincher is complaining about being pinged - his loving post to me was "You stupid, senile motherfvcker, that wasn't eordcarl who called you militant atheist queers, guess again, it was me, who keeps getting unwanted bullshit notifications about shit I know nothing about". His other posts here also mentioned pings. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That's really peripheral. Eodcarl's logged-in edits (calling one the most respected NT scholars in North America a "fringe hack", for instance) were already indef-worthy. I'm pretty sure I was the target of at least one of QUACK Til edits your referring to, but I'm not complaining. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

User:JMWt

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

---

I have a WP:COMPETENCE concern about this editor who has completed 2,300-plus edits in 18 months. It is evident from his comments in a number of AfD topics that he considers WP:Notability to be the sole criterion for AfD and he is repeatedly asserting that such criteria as WP:VERIFY and WP:IINFO are "not policy reason for deletion". Please see this, this, this, this and this.

In addition, the editor's attitude must be called into question per his messages to User:Jimbo Wales. For example, this one but see also the whole topic. On his own talk page, he is openly rude to people who try to help him. for example: this in response to being given barnstars, etc. and his rudeness towards Dr. Blofeld, an experienced editor who was trying to help him.

Cause for concern, I think, and perhaps a warning from an admin would be appropriate. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTBATTLE I am discussing my opinions on the above user's AfD which I believe is predicated on poor policy arguments. I have not attacked him/her personally, the other points from talkpages have nothing to do with this. JMWt (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not breaching WP:NOTBATTLE. That is your interpretation of my attempts to provide guidance to an obviously inexperienced editor. I am trying to ensure that other readers are not misled by your repeated assertions that such policies as WP:VERIFY (including cases where WP:BLP is relevant) and WP:IINFO are "not policy reason for deletion". Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, bringing in issues which are nothing to do with you to bolster your self desgnation as an "experienced editor" who can "provide guidance" is to "hold grudges, import personal conflicts". I'd like to continue with the AfD if you don't mind, without your helpful guidance. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, Jack, but on the whole (or maybe more than that) JMWt is right. You need to review WP:DEL-REASON. EEng 19:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't see the problem here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• I see no issues with the AFD !votes and talkpage blanking is allowed as per WP:TPO, Like above I see no issues and this should be speedy closed to save everyone elses time being wasted. –Davey2010^Talk 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable edit summary?

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

---

User Tarage has left the edit summary "Enjoy your ban" here.[38] Is such an edit summary acceptable - it seems like a form of grave dancing to me. I notice from Tarage's Talk page they have been warned previously by admins about unacceptable edit summaries. I am not seeking sanctions here, but perhaps an appropriately worded stern warning from an admin is required. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, does every little thing have to be a new ANI grievance? EEng 17:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion of another place I should take it to? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps just leave it alone? -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 17:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

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

---

I reverted this IP today. I am familiar with the edit before as I reverted a different IP in the past for the same edit, but I completely forgot that I reverted User:AmirSurfLera before for the same edit. I didn't know the user was blocked, and is apparently using different IPs to edit. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm indeffing AmirSurfLera for sockpuppetry. He's clearly not interested in operating in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Strange reference removals by IP

There is to bring attention to a strange removal of references by IP 46.5.0.71. across pages. [[39]] Limit-theorem (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's more than just removing references; it's removing (small bits of) content along with the removals, and adding in unsourced one-liners. This needs attention from someone who can block IPs. Argyriou (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't the IP just being warned properly and then reported at WP:AIV? If he's removing sourced information, that's well within what can be handled there. He hasn't yet received a final warning. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

And they haven't edited since 07:04 in any case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A warning would still do before any further actions, however. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 17:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure its the person who was editing under IP 24.22.226.17 before. If you look at that IP's edit log you'll see he's targeted the same group of articles and performed the same odd actions to blank and remove data. He has also used the same tactics to hide the edits; simpler edit notes, claiming it violate WP:COI or hiding the removal by adding something small and inconsequential. Assuming they are the same person the user has therefore ignored repeated attempts as communication, warning and two blocks on editing issued on 6-Oct-16 and 18-Oct-16. Unless he stops, based on the history he will edit again in about 5 to 12 days and do the same thing, but in the mean time I reported his new IP address earlier on WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 18:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• You need to request the articles in question get semi-protection at WP:RFPP, that is about the only thing that works in these cases of stealth vandalism. Their goal is simply to brag about how they undermined the integrity of Wikipedia. Life gets lonely in mom's basement, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If it's just one IP (not a hopper) and he is vandalizing or engaging only in disruptive editing, then blocking the IP is a better solution. Can protect the pages if he appears again, but that's not necessary for now. As Bob says above, he should be talk-page warned and reported at WP:AIV.The other IP mentioned in this thread geolocates to a completely different continent and the articles actually are different, not the same group. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Insults, trolling, and vandalism by User:74tyhegf

74tyhegf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), accompanying their violation 1RR discretionary sanctions at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016,[40][41] began issuing personal insults ("clinton whipping boy",[42],"put up or shut up")[43], and then began vandalizing ("Hillary Clinton stooge")[44] and trolling ("that guy is obviously a stooge employed by clinton")[45] other user and user talk pages. I'm not sure whether the editor received warning of the discretionary sanctions but they have acknowledged warnings from editors not to edit war[46] or insult others.[47] I also haven't looked into their history to know whether this is a pattern. But editing user pages to call people stooges is pretty deliberate bad faith behavior, warned or not. Thanks for any help, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The constant page blanking of the editors talk page, and the comments there to date, suggest no understanding of WP:AGF

Leaving user page edits that are WP:PA, and close to incoherent unsigned comments on talk pages [48]

the diffs offered by Wikidemon speak for themselves - suggest sanction, as further warnings in all likelihood would get blanked as well JarrahTree 02:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I left the discretionary sanctions warning for the American politics topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• He also added politicians to List of Australian criminals, as you can see here , which is nothing short of disruptive editing. Ratel (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Went to 4RR on Australian Greens (albeit in 27 hours, not 24).[49][50][51][52] and left a tit-for-tat cut-and-paste edit warring notice[53] nine minutes after the person warned against edit warring.[54] — and after being notified of this discussion, to which the editor has not responded. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: A new editor with barely 80 edits [55]. I haven't checked through the edits but what has been reported above does not bode well. Softlavender (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Continued action with WP:POV edits with no WP:RS only opinions asserted in edit summaries JarrahTree 08:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have issued a 72-hours arbitration enforcement block for his edit-warring at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Additionally I have set the condition that an indefinite block will be applied should 74tyhegf's generally uncooperative behaviour and POV-pushing resume after this first block. De728631 (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I would support indef. This editor, in his brief time at Wikipedia, appears to do nothing but add negative material about left-wing subjects and remove negative material about right-wing subjects. Some of these actions are supportable in isolation, but he's here to push a POV, not help build an encyclopedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Reagrding articles about maithripala sirisena

This about jim33 reverting agrresive articles regarding Maithripala Sirisena Sri Lankan president.This whole section is aggressively edited it is visible when you read them.This news has been prooved by the editor by several articles which are written by media institutions and several news papers which is being powerd by opposition party (Rajapaksa regime)please take necessary actions about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalistdmy (talk • contribs) 09:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this section. That looks perfectly legitimate to me. We're not accusing him in Wikipedia's voice of nepotism, we're noting that accusations of nepotism have been made against him, and the fact that the accusations have been made seems more than adequately sourced. ‑ Iridescent 09:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Journalistdmy obviously has a COI,[56] and has continued to edit Maithripala Sirisena to remove sourced content, without responding to questions on their page and apparently neglecting to read or pay heed to the policies and guidelines they have been linked to. I have warned them to stop editing the article directly and instead request edits on the article talkpage. If they persist in flouting our rules, I'll block. Bishonen | talk 13:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC).

IPs adding sockpuppet templates and personal attacks

I came across 37.255.97.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2601:5C2:201:9CD:19D4:D557:4381:A5CC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and saw that they are having a little edit war over at List of Microsoft codenames. I know ANI is not the venue for report edit warring, however I see 37.255.97.96 making some personal attacks in edit summaries (see 1 and 2). In addition both IPs added the {{IPsock}} to each other's talk pages (see 1 and 2). -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello.

2601:5C2:201:9CD:19D4:D557:4381:A5CC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is actually an ex-sockpuppet, IP hopper and stalker. IP geolocation analysis indicates he is the same person responsible for attempting to vandalize Microsoft Office article. ([57], [58], [59]) His target is exclusively me. I can give you more of his IP addresses but I don't think it is very relevant here. The point is: What he is reverting from List of Microsoft codenames is good material.

I don't know anything about 37.255.97.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) except his modus operandi is indefensible.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Semiprotected. Last time was a month, this time is 3. Feel free to clean up now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Copy that. Removed one {{IPSock}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, it seems I had underestimated how pathetic this person is: [60] and [61]. The answer is "very". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello71 3RR block review

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

---

Recently, while reverting disruptive editing by Special:Contributions/2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F, I found myself blocked for violations of 3RR by User:Ritchie333. He claims that my edits constitute edit warring, and that I, to paraphrase, 'should know better'. To be brief, I requested unblocking which User:Huon declined. It is my strong belief that based on the evidence that I presented at User talk:Hello71/Archive 1#October 2016, my actions constitute counter-vandalism work rather than edit warring. User:Ritchie333 and User:Huon disagree, but appear to have presented no evidence in support of their arguments, rather instead pointing me towards policies that I have read and considered in my responses, and an essay which I believe poorly explains the actual policy. I would like to hear the community's views on the following questions, or related points:

1. Is there a consensus for describing my actions as "edit warring"?
2. Is there a consensus for describing Special:Contributions/2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F's actions as not "edit warring"?
3. If the first is true, is it severe enough to warrant an immediate block with effectively no warning?
4. If the first is true (and even perhaps if it isn't), what ought I have done (and do in future) to avoid that?
5. If the first is false, are they an appropriate use of the rollback tool?

Please take the time to at least skim through the (admittedly long) text on my talk page, and also reference Wikipedia policies and/or behavioral guidelines in your answer if at all possible.

Lastly, I am not sure whether this is the correct place for this type of discussion. Feel free to move it (preferably with a note here and/or on my talk page) to somewhere more appropriate. ⁓ Hello71 19:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: Also see related comments by 2601:1c0:4401:f360:e036:ce49:fd17:5346 and related comments by MarnetteD and Ritchie333. I'd like to highlight specifically Ritchie333's wording here of "I don't really feel that much remorse in knocking those editors down a peg or two" and "If I catch you violating 3RR again, the next block will be for a week.", which sound very much like WP:BATTLE/WP:WIN to me. ⁓ Hello71 20:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to highlight Ritchie333's use of the phrase "if he could have seen it coming, he would have behaved in a way that wouldn't have made a block necessary", which would appear to contradict his extended block reason that I could have seen it coming. ⁓ Hello71 20:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically, you were edit warring since there was no obvious vandalism. The IP was also edit warring. In my opinion, you should not have been blocked without a warning and I feel pretty strongly about that. However, Ritchie333 operated well within the boundaries of reasonable admin judgement in my opinion. In the future, withdraw before you reach four reverts (or sooner) and use other avenues to report the disruption (ANI, AIV or wait for another editor to take care of it). Ritchie333's comments on his own talk page are slightly chilling, but I guess "walk a mile in his shoes" applies.- MrX 23:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I declined Hello71's unblock request and might thus be considered somewhat involved. Still, my opinion on the questions, in order:

1. I do not see how reverting five times within ten minutes at Template:Stephen Spielberg can be considered anything but edit warring. In my opinion, none of the valid exceptions apply.
2. The IP editor was also edit warring (and was also blocked by Ritchie333).
3. You mean a warning like this one? Consider the warning you gave the IP editor a warning you received; you were well aware of the inappropriateness of edit warring.
4. Since the IP had already reverted another editor on the template (who stopped at two reverts), you could have reported them at WP:AN/3RR and waited for them to be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR yourself. Explaining on the talk page why those dates are considered useful would likely also have helped (if only to show that you aren't the one who blindly reverts without engaging in a discussion).
5. There seems to be some agreement that the edits you rolled back were not obvious vandalism. I do not see what other criterion for use of rollback applies.

As a personal aside, I'd say the most important questions here are 4. and 5. (thanks for asking those) - what to take away from this incident and how to avoid that it happens again. Unfortunately, sometimes we have to jump through hoops and go to lengths that feel bothersome when we feel we are so obviously right, but there are times when that's necessary. Happened to me, too, time and again. Huon (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

1. I do not see how reverting five times within ten minutes at Template:Stephen Spielberg can be considered anything but edit warring. In my opinion, none of the valid exceptions apply.

I would disagree, on the grounds of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR (somewhat ironically): "Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action.". This strongly implies agreement with the phrasing I used on my talk page in my second unblock request, that the reverts were reasonable due to "the fact that at least three other users agree with me, either in words or actions: Special:Contributions/2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F, User:DRAGON BOOSTER, and User:MarnetteD".

2. The IP editor was also edit warring (and was also blocked by Ritchie333).

The latter part is simply not correct. They were blocked by Ponyo, as shown on the contributions page and proven by the block log.

3. You mean a warning like this one? Consider the warning you gave the IP editor a warning you received; you were well aware of the inappropriateness of edit warring.

To be clear, I am specifically referring to the fact that it is at the very least unclear whether my actions constitute edit warring, as mildly supported by your use of the phrase "In my opinion". It is, however, in my opinion, and I hope the community at large, perfectly clear that the actions of the IP editor constitute edit warring. To that end, it puzzles me that I was blocked and they were not; while I strongly disagree that I should have been blocked in the first place, at least blocking both of us would have been an internally consistent course of action, if not necessarily with policy. I suppose a question 2a might be "if they do constitute edit warring, why was 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F not blocked?".

4. Since the IP had already reverted another editor on the template (who stopped at two reverts), you could have reported them at WP:AN/3RR and waited for them to be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR yourself. Explaining on the talk page why those dates are considered useful would likely also have helped (if only to show that you aren't the one who blindly reverts without engaging in a discussion).

I agree that the AN3RR page is more appropriate for this. I was not aware that such a space existed, and will use it in future. However, while I agree that in general, more detail is helpful when it comes to AIV, AN, etc, that needs to be balanced with the realities of counter-vandalism: the limited time means that it is unrealistic to issue a blanket statement that all such reports must come with excruciating detail. Instead, in my opinion, it is far more reasonable to say something like "reports may be declined without further reason if the case appears unclear to an administrator and the details given are insufficient" or something along those lines.

With regards to the use of a report in lieu of instead of in addition to reverting, see my re-reply to question 1 above.

5. There seems to be some agreement that the edits you rolled back were not obvious vandalism. I do not see what other criterion for use of rollback applies.

My argument previously was that both the "obvious vandalism" and "widespread unhelpful edits" criteria apply, since here we are discussing rollback and not 3RR. If we assume that the former criterion, if not necessarily inapplicable, has no consensus to be applied in this case, the latter would appear to apply nonetheless. Specifically, the edits in question are "widespread", check, "misguided", optimistic check, and "unhelpful", probably-check. The question in this case is what exactly "[supplying] an explanation in an appropriate location" means. I believe that an edit summary (if by another user) and user talk warning constitute "an explanation", particularly given that it is well-settled (I hope) that rollback may be used against non-vandalism edits such as inappropriate adding of external links with only a user talk warning, and that it would render the rollback tool utterly useless in such cases of "widespread unhelpful edits" if an edit summary was required on every page. ⁓ Hello71 02:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC) edited 03:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• When you find yourself having to write this much text defending your actions, you probably stepped over a line somewhere. But to be specific, I'm not thrilled with the block, but you were certainly edit warring and violated 3RR. It simply wasn't vandalism or even (to my untrained eye) clearly a bad edit by the IP. Or so goes my non-admin opinion on the matter. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Here's the thing, Hello71: The proper procedure when an IP is repeatedly disrupting an article or template without talk-page discussion is to request semi-protection of the page at WP:RFPP (and/or warn them on their talk page to stop edit-warring, noting that they could be blocked if they persist, and if they do persist after that then report them at WP:ANEW). The proper procedure is never to edit-war. Moreover, the edits on that template were decidedly not WP:VANDALISM, they were simply a difference of opinion. If you do not know what WP:VANDALISM is, please learn it now before proceeding to edit Wikipedia further. Although I believe that Ritchie should have talk-page warned you and given you a chance to desist before he blocked you (and I recommend that he always do that going forward), I endorse the block and I endorse the declines of the unblock requests. A further lesson to take away from this experience is that in unblock requests you need to state that you understand how you violated the relevant policy or guideline, and you need to completely avoid pointing fingers at others. I realize this is a lot of information to take in, but these three or four standard rules of thumb are basic Wikipedia protocols. Please take careful heed of them. Lastly, please initiate discussion on the talk-page of an article or template instead of blindly re-reverting non-vandalism edits. Please read WP:BRD if you do not understand this principle. I personally recommend that you at least temporarily stop using Huggle and other automated or semi-automated tools, and do some actual content-related edits on Wikipedia (always with clear edit summaries that describe exactly what you did and why). Right now you are a hammer and everything looks like a nail, and that skews your viewpoint of what editing should consist of and how it should be done. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I was asked by Hello71 to weigh in on the discussion as I may have been involved. Since I undid two or three of the Ip edits and I`m aware of the situation, here it is: first of all "The edits made by 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F (talk) didnot meet WP:PERFNAV and disclosed edit war". But the comment by MrX was spot-on. I think what everybody is trying to say is that You should have demonstrated good faith (atleast once) than just reverting the edits repeatedly despite being incorrect edits, they are not obvious vandalized edits. Even though you did, you should have left a message like 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) did than using twinkle (I suppose). Even though you didn`t, you should have reported them at WP:ANEW (just like User:Haploidavey (talk) did (same case, checkout history of Ethiopia)) or could have requested semi-protection of the page or template. May be if you have done atleast one of the above things you might not have been blocked. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC).
• Just to pick up on one point, I do normally try and steer people away from blocks and normally turn a blind eye to 3RR if it's one off; however I noticed this editor had previously been warned not to revert good faith edits from IPs as vandalism (here), and I also consciously did not warn for the reasons Huon said. If you aren't prepared to take responsibility for what Twinkle and Huggle writes on user talk pages, do not use it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree in this case that I ought to have watched the user talk page and responded to that comment. I have since rectified that by apologizing to the user in question, enabling the "Add user talk page to watchlist when notifying" option in Twinkle and since a similar option does not appear to exist in Huggle, I have filed a Huggle bug for adding one. That said, however, I vehemently disagree that what happened on that talk page could be described as "being warned", which implies a number of things that I don't think are necessarily true here. ⁓ Hello71 13:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

---

OK, so I think there is some limited consensus that while I was engaging in edit warring, Ritchie333 may have been too hasty in placing the block. That seems to me like a good start, but I'd still like to dispute the former point with an example right from this page's recent history, where General Ization did three reverts in a row and was apparently not blocked or even warned. In my opinion, they are highly similar to mine:

1. General Ization did technically make three reverts, and I am reasonably confident that he would have made more if the IP had continued to undo his, given that he had already violated the letter of 3RR.
2. He did not provide any explicit reason for his actions.
3. RickinBaltimore had, however, used the brief phrase "per WP:DENY" in his reversion, which General Ization could reasonably be said to be following.
4. RickinBaltimore and MRD2014 could have decided to stop after two reverts, or could have simply stopped watching (in a non-technical sense) the page.
5. All of these editors have seniority on the English Wikipedia, all in edits, two in years as well.
6. The edits reverted were not blatantly vandalism, considered in isolation.
7. However, considered in the context of the other edits made by the IP recently as seen in their IP contributions, they could, in my opinion, be described as such using the phrasing implied strongly at WP:VANDALISM, 'bad faith unhelpful edits'. "bad faith", because a good faith editor would not copy and paste the same WP:NPA message to six pages, and "unhelpful" on the face of it.
8. The IP was likely evading a previous block, as evidenced by the block messages of them, the IP in my case, and the contributions of the /64 IP range in my case.

And possibly other things that I have not yet thought of. There are only a few key differences, in my view:

1. General Ization had been asked recently on his talk page to avoid classifying edits as vandalism.
2. The IP was not provided any talk page warning, in keeping with the use of WP:DENY as a reason.
3. The edits occurred in Wikipedia namespace rather than article.
4. General Ization made three reverts rather than five.

My question is here then that if the edits were some similar edits (for some reasonable definition of similar) in content namespaces, [edit: and General Ization had made four reverts rather than three, 20:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)] would General Ization's behavior also be considered inappropriate, if not necessarily warranting a block? And if not, which point above is the critical factor, or which relevant point have I missed? ⁓ Hello71 13:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. Just wow. Are you ever going to drop the stick here? You egregiously edit-warred (making 5 reverts in ten minutes, a clear violation of WP:3RR), over edits that were not even remotely vandalism, and you got blocked for 24 hours. End of story. Not one person on this thread disagrees with that. Your continued wikilawyering and self-justification is a very very bad sign -- a sign of WP:IDHT. If you don't take in the fact that it was you who erred and nobody else, I think a WP:BOOMERANG may be headed your way. You've already spread your complaining over at least two pages and tens of thousands of bytes. Please stop. Softlavender (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• While we are discussing policy, there is a policy that when you discuss someone and/or their editing history here at ANI, you must explicitly notify them that you are doing so (see the rather large notice at the top of the page). When were you planning to get around to notifying me that you are discussing my recent edits here, apparently for illustrative purposes but decrying what you see as a violation of policy? General Ization ^Talk 14:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I only reverted this page twice. Had I reverted more than three times, I believe I would have been exempt from 3RR per WP:3RRNO #3. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

MRD2014, there's no reason whatsoever that either you, or RickinBaltimore, or General Ization should be dragged into this discussion. None of you have made a single edit to Template:Steven_Spielberg: [62], [63], [64]. The OP's desperation to throw anyone else under the bus except themselves, and for absolutely nonsensical reasons, causes me to believe they lack the competence to edit Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to chime in here too. I was surprised to see my name come up, when I have generally no horse in this race. As Softlavender said, I've never touched the page in question in my 10 years of editing here. Yes I have used the WP:DENY in an edit summary to remove an IP's comments, because it was warranted. I was reverting the edit of a known banned editor who uses various IP's to get around their ban, and this was simply to notify that this was an editor doing such a thing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, since you are claiming I committed a violation of "the letter of 3RR," perhaps you should re-read WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page – whether involving the same or different material – within a 24-hour period" (followed by various exceptions to that rule, which I claim apply in the case of my edits but will not go into here, since others point out they are irrelevant to your case). Though not a hard upper or lower limit to identify edit-warring behavior, you seem to think that my 3 reverts violate that guidance simply because there were three. Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "more than three"? General Ization ^Talk 19:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, why is Hello71 editing old arbitration cases? I thought only arbs and clarks were supposed to do that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 4:32 pm, Today (UTC−4)

I am unaware of any policy stating that that is not permitted, and believe that in that regard, arbitration case pages are subject only to the standard talk page rules, that editors should not change other people's comments (which can reasonably be extended to comments which have been agreed on by a committee), not that the page in general may not be changed. Regardless, I am unsure how this relates to the present discussion. ⁓ Hello71 20:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

My point was intended to show that if we ignore the text of WP:EW and focus only on the "three" part, then it is a violation. It was my understanding that three was a violation. I now understand that that is not correct. ⁓ Hello71 20:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

My point was that the reverts do not violate WP:EW. ⁓ Hello71 21:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late here, but I was notified of this ANI thread from one of my older IP addresses, so I only just now noticed it. Anyway, I would like to point out something a bit odd here. After you responded to Ritchie333's comment above (not the one about the ArbCom edits, but the one before that), it seemed like you had understood what you did was wrong by saying, "I ought to have watched the user talk page and responded to that comment...", and it seemed like things were moving in the right direction for all parties involved. But now you have violated WP:NOTTHEM (although this is not an unblock request), in making examples of previous incidents, such as "That seems to me like a good start, but I'd still like to dispute the former point with an example right from this page's recent history", in which you proceed to find/search for other incidents in which long-standing editors/vandalism fighters have violated 3RR in similar situations as this current one, while linking a previous ANI thread in trying to relate it to this discussion. That is not acceptable. Period. You did not need to involve other users into this just because you saw them not getting blocked for 3RR at a different point in time. This ANI thread is supposed to be about you, your actions, and how to rectify such problems from occurring in the distant future. There is absolutely no reason at all why you should get General Ization, RickinBaltimore and MRD2014 involved here, not to also mention the fact that you need to notify them of the ANI thread even if you do talk about them at all. As Softlavender has pointed out; you really need to drop the stick here, and while I do think that Ritchie333's block may have been a bit hasty, and once I saw that you reported the initial IP to WP:AIV and then later saw that you had been blocked for 3RR as per boomerang, I had come to defend you because I thought that the block on you was a bit harsh, especially when you were edit warring with an IP that was block evading. But now, you are unblocked, and it would be best to just move on from here on out. While I think it is good that you are trying to prevent the situation from happening/occurring again by changing your Twinkle and Huggle settings/preferences (though, I personally have no experience with these automated reverting tools), the fact that you are trying to compare this situation to other incidents of edit warring is not going to help you, or anyone else involved here at all...

In siding with you though, Hello71, you should have technically been exempted from the block as per WP:3RRNO (bullet point #3), since the IP involved was block evading. Unfortunately, I'm assuming that Ritchie333 had no idea that this IP was block evading... BTW, I hope that you don't see my little rant above as being too harsh or critical towards you, but I'm merely just pointing out what had happened, and explaining to you why it shouldn't have happened, that's all. :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments. I do not feel that WP:NOTTHEM applies: "Do not complain about other people": I am not complaining about those edits, as I am claiming that the edits mentioned are not edit warring, not that they are and everyone should be blocked. The reason why I am bringing them up is because I am trying to understand exactly why the edits that I reverted are apparently not considered vandalism, and that the edits that General Ization reverted are. It is also possible that the latter is entirely wrong, and that General Ization's behavior was also inappropriate. To repeat, I am not saying that I believe he was edit warring, but saying that that would be one explanation of the behavior I have seen. Another suitable example might be Callmemirela's recent edits also on this page, since he did five de facto reverts (i.e. not including the temporary and self-revert) nearly in a row (the same number that I did), also not prima facie vandalism, against an IP-hopping vandal, etc. Again, I firmly believe none of these examples constitute edit warring, let alone warrant blocking, but am willing to be shown otherwise with references to WP:VANDALISM, RFCs, etc. Otherwise, I am still unclear if they do not then why mine do. ⁓ Hello71 00:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, you haven't notified anybody of who you are talking about in your ANI thread. This is getting repetitive and frankly annoying. I found out that I was mentioned through diffs. I will again repeat what everybody has said from now and per the orange box on top of the editing box, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." The fact that you are being repeated this once more makes me think competence issues.

Please refer to me as a she. I am a girl. Mirela is a female Croatian name of the French name Mireille with ties to Spanish, Italian and other languages. If you are unsure of an editor's gender, please check their user page and if it doesn't indicate their gender then he/she.

Now, back to what you are referring to. Yes, I reverted edits from an IP just recently and a few today. Per WP:NOT3RR, I am exempt from engaging in 3RR because the user was evading blocks by using different IPs. See exemption #3: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users."

I am not going to specifically comment on your ANI thread as I have no interest and everybody has already said what I was thinking, which you are clearly ignoring. I am going to echo what Softlavender has said. Drop the stick already. This constant bringing up uninvolved users into your ANI thread for no reason is getting tendentious and bothersome. You are nearing a boomerang being thrown on your side. This ANI thread is about your conduct, not other users. If you want complain about other users' conducts, create a new section. You wanted advice, and you have it. Now stop this nonsense. I am sensing WP:CIR and WP:IDHT issues. If that's the way you want to act, then go ahead but don't drag me into something I have no business in. Are we clear? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

1. As I believe I have made clear, I am not discussing any specific editor's behavior except mine, 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F's, and tangentially Ritchie333's. I am pointing to edits to use as references, but not "posting a grievance about a user".

2. Sorry, I had in fact inferred female gender from your user name, but wanted to check, and for some reason failed to read the navigation popups symbol properly (stupid tiny font size on this computer). My apologies for that.

3. Yes, I agree, and that is one of my primary arguments here.

4. Nowhere did I say that I was complaining about your behavior, or that you had to comment at all. On the contrary, I claimed at least twice that I believe you did nothing wrong in those reverts. Merely mentioning a user does not mean I am complaining about their behavior or soliciting their input. ⁓ Hello71 02:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The rule is very simple: when you mention another editor here at ANI, you must notify them that you are doing so. If you cannot grasp the reasons for that policy, then I join others here who suggest that competence may be an issue. And I encourage an admin to bring this discussion, which very clearly seems to be accomplishing nothing other than annoying other, uninvolved editors (myself included), to a close. General Ization ^Talk 02:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

100% Agree with General Ization. This is going absolutely nowhere, and there is clearly no point in discussing this at ANI. Hello71, and others, including myself as well, if we all want to discuss the issues of WP:EW, WP:3RR and/or WP:3RRNO, then it be best to discuss this at the talkpages of those Wikipedia guidelines, as this way of discussing it here at ANI is clearly not working at all. Also, If any editor is mentioned within an ANI thread at all, no matter in what context that they are being discussed in, they must be notified of the discussion talking place at all times (yes, even if they are pinged through linking/mentioning the user at all). 2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats (two now)

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

---

User:Jkouhyar: "I'll sue you": [65]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

And now: "I also sue you. thanks!!" [66]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably a non-native speaker. In this case, I would interpret it as "I will report it to the administrators". But I'm feeling generous today. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That confirms my suspicion. Not a legal threat. CIR, not NLT. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

They are both clear legal threats. Pleaase read WP:SUE and WP:DOLT. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Please read WP:COMMONSENSE. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The policy, which you don't seem to understand, is clear. I don't know why you are trying to equate the word "sue" with the word "report". Please let administrators handle this. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It is you who doesn't understand. And it's not really worth arguing over, because in the end the result is the same. I am pretty sure that Jkouhyar meant: "I will also report you" so I would block for CIR not NLT (I am not an admin, YMMV). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, TQP is correct here; "Sue" has a secondary meaning of "appeal formally to a person for something". ("Sue for peace" is probably the most obvious example still in common usage.) I've warned Jkouhyar about their language in the section below, but this is almost certainly someone with English as a second language who doesn't appreciate how the term is perceived in normal English usage. ‑ Iridescent 11:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Basically agree with Iridescent, but now Jkouhyar seems to be editing every Iranian film he can find, with clear WP:CIR issues. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What is your problem with me? Softlavender attacked me but What is my fault? the law says Nothing. I try make better cinema and historical articles. Jkouhyar (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If you think that someone reverting an edit of yours with a perfectly reasonable edit summary, or reporting a possible legal threat, is attacking you, then I fear your time here at Wikipedia will be limited. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Your English is going to cause problems here. It isn't terrible, but it is difficult to edit and collaborate with others unless you have a stronger grasp on the English language than you currently have. You would likely be better off working in the Wiki for your native language, and limiting your time here while you work on your English skills. Just like the word "sue" almost got you in hot water because it is used differently than you thought. Google translate won't help you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are you linking to DOLT? While DOLT does acknowledge people are often blocked for making legal threats, the primary purpose of the essay is to emphasise even if someone has made legal threats, you should consider if there may be a good reason the editor is complaining which you should deal with rather than simply blocking and ignoring, especially in BLP cases (which isn't the case here). Actually it sort of acknowledges sometimes a block could be avoided in a legal threat case. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

insult

Softlavender insult me and remove context the source.[67] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkouhyar (talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Where is the insult? Softlavender used the edit summary "removed unsubstantiated". That is not an insult. Also, you are supposed to notify her of this thread. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

And don't threaten to sue people just because they disagree with you. The only reason I haven't blocked you for making legal threats is that I don't consider your threat remotely credible. ‑ Iridescent 11:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What's your problem?? I am not worked with you but do not insult me. Thanks Jkouhyar (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

But You. Iridescent I dont know you!!!!!! Jkouhyar (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is insulting you. And this board is not restricted to people you already know - you asked for admin input and you got it. Now stop making spurious accusations and try discussing disputed changes on the appropriate article talk page in a civil and collegial manner. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

IP address FBI threat

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

---

A court of law in Trenton, New Jersey - just one of the many places you may not threaten to sue another Wikipedian

Other places where legal threats are a no-no

"You have been reported to the FBI." 155.41.33.3 (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(diff)

...from my (DannyMusicEditor's) talk page. I'm not 100%, but 95% sure this is a violation of WP:LEGAL. This is probably an IP of a user who has something against me - I can't imagine who as I haven't had anyone who I had any real fire with lately or ever (sure I've had disputes but they never blazed out of control). This address should be blocked for startling me so, and maybe a SPI would also benefit me. See talk page to the right. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• It's certainly a form of harassment at the least. I suggest we block the IP for six months and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. We can start a SPI if it persists. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a dynamic Boston University wifi address, if that helps. It does look like trolling, but I don't think a block, especially a long block, will achieve much. Any repetition and we might have something to work with. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that there is no dispute to which I can say the IP is trying to add a chilling effect to, I think WP:NOTHERE covers it nicely. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 20:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I have given a warning to the user, he claims it to be a Halloween prank (Damn!). dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Organised vandalism

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

---

Is there something going on in American politics? I though I'd bring to admins' and others' attention that there's some organised vandalism going on at articles such as Fraud, Cheating, Influence peddling, Political corruption, Pay to play, Bribery, corruption, Sexual assault, Deception, Lucifer, and probably some other articles. Please keep an eye out. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Zzuzz, not sure how serious you are (you couldn't be, could you?), but your post does nothing to dispel the notion that Wikipedia editors are all socially awkward nerds shut up in windowless rooms with no other input or outlet. General Ization ^Talk 20:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

[British humour]. This seems to be something new, and organised. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're actually at least half-serious, perhaps you should offer some diffs or other specifics. Many of us have been seeing extensive, organized vandalism on articles related (even tangentially) to American politics for months. If you're seeing something else, it'd be helpful to know what it is. General Ization ^Talk 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Each of the listed articles, edits today. A classic example would be this image replacement and this gem. Sure there's some vandalism flying about, but as can be seen in the history of corruption and the other articles, there seems to a particular concerted focus today, from a number of accounts and IP addresses, on adding images in a Googlebomb style. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are seeing what you suspect to be coordinated disruptive editing on these pages you can always request temporary page protection. A quick look at the editing history does suggest there may be something going on, but in the grand scheme of things it's nothing to write home about. Just revert obviously disruptive edits and issue warnings/request PP as needed. Most vandals quickly loose interest in a page they are blocked from editing. It's also worth noting that a lot of this is a product of a bizarre and emotionally charged election campaign, which happily will be over in a week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

All semi-protected for ten days, plus a couple more. Given the variety of IPs and new accounts, semi-protection is the way to go. I'm sure this will recur somewhere else between now and next Tuesday. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User impersonating an admin

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

---

User:PhilNight seems to be impersonating an admin with a very similar name, and going round declining unblock appeals and the like. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That username sounds very familiar. So far, I've reverted all responses to unblock appeals. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

They were blocked. Issue resolved. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just to note there was one more unblock request that needed reverting, which I have done, and I've also struck some impersonating comments made using a faked signature. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I'd checked them all. Also, just a heads up to everyone that this is the third account intended to look like an admin I've seen today. Looks like someone got a new idea they think is clever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Clearly someone doesn't have better things to do. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk page access removal for 49.213.19.148

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

---

Talk page access for this user needs to be revoked. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Ohnoitsjamie. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Abusive editing/edit warring on behalf of User:2A1ZA

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

---

Dear admin, User:2A1ZA has been engaged in abusive editing and possibly edit warring. The user reverts contributions by others and asks them to take whatever is disagreed to the talk page without providing the proper warning templates beforehand. The user is also pretty insistent and has been known to frustrate other users. Check out the recent abusive behaviour in the Rojava article. 4world2read (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear 4world2read, I recommend that you engage in the talk page discussion on that sub-section of the article, instead of trying to "enforce" this (highly problematic) version of yours. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Simply looking at the article history proves no one's point. Yes, I see the editor reverting IP edits, but they give (some) reasons for it, and I can't easily what's supposed to be right and wrong. (I did see one Breitbart citation in the IP version, but that's a minor thing.) I can start guessing as to who has which POV, but in the meantime I see a charge of edit warring which works both ways, and no engagement with the editor's conversation starters on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) with Drmies. 4world2read, I'm not aware of any warning templates that need to be used before asking others to take whatever is disagreed on to the talk page. More generally, your account hasn't edited the article nor the talkpage at all, so it's hard to tell what your angle is here. It's not really possible for admins to evaluate 2A1ZA's contributions to the article in relation to yours, since you're obviously not a new user, although your account is new, and I can't tell what if anything you have contributed to the article. I presume one or more of the IPs editing the article before you created your account at 20:50 28 October 2016, UTC, were being used by you. (The only IP that has edited the article talkpage since forever is 85.109.220.31, briefly, rather unreasonably accusing 2A1ZA of "vandalism".) Note that I'm not even allowed to ask which if any of the IPs are yours, as that would violate your privacy. As an admin, there's nothing I can do here. It's obviously a content dispute, so I recommend in the first place the article talkpage, and if that doesn't help, dispute resolution. I suggest closing this. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC).
  • Oh was that little tickle I just felt? Drmies (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Malerooster repeatedly swearing at others

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

---

Malerooster (talk · contribs) Difflinks: Idiots., your analysis above is horsesh#t. Sorry Volunteer Marek, sh$t is sh&t,, now that's some serious horsesh#t., Who the F cares, this is the type of horsesh$t, Why don't you go "work" on the Clinton article., you are sh^tting me, right? This wiki is sersiously f ed up, but not that f ed up., ... He has already been asked to calm down by at least Volunteer Marek and MrX, so I ask for another voice to state that these kind of offenses are inappropriate. --SI 20:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah some of that is a bit over the top. I dropped a note on their talk page. Hopefully they will take the hint and we can all move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I had also told him, on his talk page, that this has to stop - I think that must have been slightly before this report was filed. He replied "You're right, I will. " I think he has gotten the message. With just a week to go before the election we may have a lot of people losing their cool. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you two have done an excellent job with talking to the editor about the incivility - Well done! I won't pile onto your awesome work by talking to him directly. However, I will say that this incivility is indeed unacceptable, and that Malerooster will be blocked if this continues despite the warnings. Thanks again, and well done with approaching this user in a direct but civil manner with his behavior. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and pings

Hi Dennis Brown. I know that personally attacking a user is not acceptable yet JuanRiley did exactly that by making an entire section to personally attack me. Normally I would let it slide, but continued to ping me to his insult section after I specifically told him to keep me out of it. And yes, as you can see he modified my discussion while pinging me again after I told him to not ping me. It's also fair to mention he did this to others as well yet continued after being taken to ANI for this type of behaviour, problematic to say the least. (N0n3up (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC))

• I was hovering over the block button here, but as we have not heard from the editor I have final warned them. Any other admin is welcome to overrule me if they think I have been too lenient. The comments at the top of their talk page suggests I probably have been, but ... Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Black Kite, Apart from the fact he made a special personal-attack section and kept pinging me after I told him to stop, he also modified my message as seen in here and others as well around the day I noticed him again in the Guadalcanal campaign article. Not to mention, he has a history of not collaborating well with others and one need only to look at his history section to find that out. (N0n3up (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC))

Can confirm N0n3up's statement. I attempted to remove the attack section, but he repeatedly reverted any edits I made, ignoring any comments or warnings that I made. Stating that I removed his section "without knowing what happened". Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 03:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

He's playing coy. Just block him. --Tarage (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

How does this relate to Ping? I am confused, even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile It means apart of creating a section dedicated to personal attack, he pings me into the page. Ping is to mention the user in a way that notifies them, which made it a nuisance.

And Seraphimblade and Lankiveil, although despite the warnings and ANIs and blocks, he still continued to make personal attacks as seen here and there referring me as "little lambikins" or something. Nevertheless, JuanRiley has had this kind of attitude all the time. Not only with me but other users such as Keith-264, Drmies, Hawkeye7 (whom he's commented against his admin candidacy) and others. And this is not the first time he's dragged me to this sort of things, he posted this a while ago in my talk page because I reverted one of his edits and made him take it to talk page. I personally believe it will take more to change Juan's actions. Yes, I've had tiffs in the past as all of us had but we change, but JuanRiley seems to be a different case. Not sure if he'll ever change. (N0n3up (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC))

• The response to the warning by Black Kite was the following series of edits: [68]. I therefore believe that this editor has no intent of stopping what he's doing even after being warned it's inappropriate, and issued a week block. If this happens again, they get longer, or they get indefinite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Well said Seraphimblade. Personally I think an indefinite block should be the next move. And I've never considered that a user should be blocked for such an infinite time, but now I understand why admins have the option to block someone indefinitely. (N0n3up (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC))

Editor on a mission: folkloristics vs cryptozoology

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

Bloodofox asked for some help here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#list_of_cryptids.

There is an ongoing dispute about the list of cryptids page with another editor. That is a formatted page which has been developed by many editors over time and was a useful page as a directory and other listed information. It is now looking like a page that has been the subject of warring.

One of the listed "cryptids" pages, Jersey devil is on my watchlist. I saw where Bloodofox had removed some content there. I tried to restore the content and it got a little messy. If this was just about the Jersey devil article, that would not be a problem.

Bloodofox is on a project-wide mission (see edit summaries, "cryptozoology hijacking")....and although many of Bloodofox's edits are good ones, some are disruptive and destructive. Also Bloodofox seems to be applying policies that do not exist specifically where folklore vs cryptozoology is concerned.

Normally, I would love to work with another editor to improve an article and personally I don't have an interest in cryptids or folklore so I'm going to stick to trying to improve the Jersey devil article, (yes I already know I made some mistakes there myself), but what Bloodofox is doing is so widespread that I am worried about the effects on the project as a whole and I can't make it my job to hound Bloodofox or try to monitor their massive problem with anything having to do with folklore vs crptids.

Also I have noticed that Bloodofox removes ref and sources, and then tags articles as needing sources.

I am appealing for sanctions and attention to this problem. I am asking that Bloodofox be restricted to talk pages only on articles in topics related to cryptids until other editors have a chance to review Bloodofox's proposals. Or that Bloodofox be banned from deleting content or sources or references on the topic unless they are clearly spam or non-contestable type edits? Thank-you.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I wish you would explain exactly what Bloodofox is doing that's so bad. Removing content? What kind of content? Removing species? Moving stuff around? Are you talking about edits like this one? That edit seems perfectly valid. This shouldn't be cited anywhere in an encyclopedia (the website of a psychic? fo shizzle?), and this, while dead, has a telling URL: this is something for fourth graders. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Bloodofox has, in the past, edit warred over blanking-and-redirecting (see [69] on Cryptid in August 2016; [70] on Lake monster in February/March 2016 [full disclosure: I was involved in that last one]), but that doesn't appear to be an issue recently. If anything, I'd like to see a note on the talk page when Bloodofox adds tags to a page like this or this. If he's not going to fix the issues himself, a brief rationale behind the tags would help other editors who aren't as familiar with the subject area. clpo13_(talk) 18:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Hmm...those tags...but they come with an edit summary. Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha, but those two diffs on Agogwe and Ahool (what on earth are those things??), I can not find fault with them, and I have no doubt we've all tagged articles in that way, throwing our hands in the air, not knowing what on earth to do with something. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not disagree exactly with the edits Drmies mentions. It is the insistence that this anti cryptid/psuedoscience agenda be pushed in articles, AND more destructive imo. the allegation like these; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jersey_Devil&diff=prev&oldid=746471105 where only folklorist sources are valid. That is not policy and I resent saying that it is.

• Removal of image and content here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altamaha-ha&diff=next&oldid=739391075 see before and after what the article looks like. Note edit summary "(Another folklore article hijacked by cryptozoology. Lack of objectivity a hallmark of this stuff, unfortunately. See talk.)"

• This is just an example of cryptids vs folklore problem, and this appears to be some kind of internal political problem that probably needs addressing, I'm not saying that I disagree with these changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mothman&diff=prev&oldid=744090469 actually I approve most of the editing on this but it has escalated to innocent and good edits.

• Okay, here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jersey_Devil&diff=prev&oldid=744091294 the content was deleted. with summary "This is not a reliable source. Article needs to be rewritten with secondary sources from folklorists rather than cobbled together with random websites" . Now the content is gone. I re-added it. When I attempted to use a better source I was told that because the source is a cryptozoologist, that souce was not good in an authoritative tone and policy-stating manner which does not apply. Currently in progress at WP:RS.

• This edit summary ("(→‎WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and the Restoration of Cryptozoology Material: +)") makes no sense here and is agenda-driven https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jersey_Devil&diff=prev&oldid=746312705 and implies policy that is not there.

• This deletion of content sourced to Coleman a noted cryptozoologist/author credentialed source. note edit summary does not apply to the action taken ("History and description: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:UNDUE"). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akkorokamui&diff=prev&oldid=746312095

comments:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jersey_Devil&diff=prev&oldid=746311767"Now, you aren't familiar with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources (WP:RS), you haven't bothered to read the material you're restoring, or you're just trolling. Whatever the case, do not restore this material unless you can come up with academic secondary sources. If you can't, leave it out."-------no that is not how it works. There is no req. for acedemic sources, especially acedemic folklore ONLY refrences! I resent bad advice from a long time editor.

There is more, but I hope that this outlines my complaint. The edit summaries do not relate to the edits. They imply authority where it does not even apply in some instances.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Boy have I noticed the exact same thing with user Bloodofox. He deletes rather than discuss, he removes Cryptid redirects to "List of cryptids" because he is on a mission to remove the entire subject from wikipedia. He make continual personal attacks rather than staying on topic. I have avoided taking him to Ani because that often makes things worse, but I ran across this and had to comment. This particular topic seems to bring out the worst in him and he should probably avoid it as much as possible. Certainly he has "some" good ideas, but his blunt force method and manner of conversation is quite terrible and needs to be fixed in some way. I just had to fix his redirect of Cryptid that he had to know would upset people. He delinked the word in the Cryptozoology article also. I didn't fix that yet since I noticed this complaint. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cryptozoology is a true science, and that the articles could use more sourcing, but they are surely wikipedia compatible. Not everything is science 101 here. We have thousands of articles on tv characters, large articles on astrology, card game rules, minor league baseball players, etc.. I have brought up that the "List of cryptids" article needs more sourcing, some trimming, and some expansion, but I usually get just personal attacks and hatchet removals from Bloodofox. That's no really working with other editors as we can see by the complaints here. Even as I write this another personal strike just hit my talk page. He just doesn't get it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

When you clean up articles involving pseudoscience, you inevitably run into their proponents. Of course, they'd much prefer that the articles remain as friendly to their pet pseudosciences as possible. Fyunck is one such example (i.e., when not edit-warring without comment or trying his best to get me to edit-war, Fyunck lets the mask slip now and then with comments about his distaste for "global warming alarmists" and how much he dislikes editing with academic editors while making all sorts of pro-crypto-jibber-jabber along the way). Editors can themselves see my edit summary regarding the redirect. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

edit warring and personal attacks are what Bloodofox is best at. All one has to do is check out his edit history with me to see massive examples of both. This is simply a topic he has no control over himself with, and it's getting to be a big problem. Whenever someone calls him on his attacks and deletions he goes back to old comments to throw you off the scent. No one buys this stuff anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not even agreeing that these articles are "PSEUDOSCIENCE". Are they PSEUDOSCIENCE or "folklore"? And I am on to your evil plan to classify articles as crptids/PSEUDOSCIENCE and folklore, with your agenda to impose academic folkloric standards to these articles. All anyone has to do is look at how you have POV, WP:OWN the Troll article since you first started editing that in 2009. I can appreciate the cultural propriety with that topic and other Norse folklore that you have had your way with, but the fact remains that you have turned an edited by consensus article into a trap where only special academic folklorists work may be used as ref. It discourages editors-look at all the pleas to include Billy Goats Gruff, but no. That is not going to work with the Jersey Devil and other topics where you are trying to gain folklore sanctions and power. There IS NO PSEUDOSCIENCE on the JD page anyhow, so why is it continually mentioned by you? I'm not even agreeing that cryptozoology IS PSEUDOSCIENCE, but if it is, I don't believe that you are applying it properly here.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• bloodofox is aiming in the right direction. They have raised issues in this set of articles at the WP:FRINGEN a couple of times and i have taken a look. Many of these articles are badly sourced or unsourced and many are full of cruft. I sympathize with their efforts to clean these up, but I don't like to edit topics where there are so few high quality sources as it leads to ugly disputes like those described above. That's all I wanted to say. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  You mean Bloodofox has raised these issues at WP:FRINGEN and many other places as he canvasses for any kind of support. No one is saying these articles are science (or at least I hope not). They are more entertainment than anything else and sourcing should follow that type of protocol. As long as it's pointed out what this topic is and isn't with regards to science there should be no problem at all. But Bloodofox isn't even trying... just chopping away anything he personally doesn't like in very bully-like fashion... and that goes over quite poorly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• TeeVeed "forgot" to mention that he has been fighting a battle to maintain in-universe descriptions of things that don't exist based on crap sources. See also WP:USEFUL. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

wait-User:JzG, are you talking about me? On the JD topic, as far as "not existing", Huh? The topic exists and has been documented for over a hundred years. JD is the state demon of NJ, (OK I have not verified that-but it sounds right). I'm confused because you state in-universe, so maybe you don't mean me since the topic exists in reality. (no comment about if JD exists) And I have not noticed where Bloodofox uses "crap sources", so that's why I'm wondering who you mean here? In my personal dispute with Bloodofox, I would call origin references and topic content related to Native Americans in the area pretty "important". At one point, Bloodofox rm an infobox link to First_Reported = Native American folklore https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jersey_Devil&diff=prev&oldid=744091340 . I don't want to argue that edit at this point, but it is just another example of judgement calls on Bloodofox's part that should be examined. The mention of Native American background to the topic goes beyond WP:USEFUL and is most certainly encyclopedic.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

JzG is correct. There is no Native American origin for the Jersey Devil stories, which historically are always linked to colonial settlers. Fortunately, we can trace exactly what happened here: Loren Coleman's Mysterious America, in discussing the Jersey Devil, refers to Poquessing Creek (on the borders of Philadelphia, on the opposite side of New Jersey from the Pine Barrens) as "Popuessing" and translates it as "place of the dragon". In fact, it's consistently translated, by sources on Algonquin toponyms as "place of mice". So the only "topic content related to Native Americans in the area" relevant to the Jersey Devil is something that Coleman invented within the current century. (He also has the date wrong on when the Swedish name was bestowed, which makes his account of the "footprints" suspect.) People have been inventing spurious folklore and putting it online for a long time (e.g., the Ong's Hat project), and critical investigation and research is important to distinguish between authentic folklore and modern inventions. The removal of uncritically compiled information from unreliable sources like these by Bloodofox is improving the encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Oooh, I have to partially retract that. Joel Cook (in 1900) does refer to Poquessing as "stream of the dragons", so the error doesn't originate with Coleman, but he doesn't provide any etymology; it's possible that he read Scharf & Wescott, who say that "The ancient spelling of this name is Poetquessingh and Pouquessinge, interpreted by Lindstrom as 'Rivière de Kakamons,' or (as a variation) 'Rivière des Dragons.'" But Lindstrom's map was simply recording the Swedish names, and there's no reason to believe that this was a direction translation of "Poquessing". Choess (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Choess, it sounds like your specialization could do the Jersey Devil article a lot of good. If you're willing to put some work into bringing the article up to WP:GA standards, I'd be glad to help where I can. For much of its life the article seems to have been relegated to promoting ad links (a bunch of which I've just removed) and espousing monster hunting over discussing the complex social and historical factors that produce figures like the Jersey Devil. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

TY for considering all that User:Choess, and yeah I am suspicious about the Indian origin too, but Coleman did have it published in a book in a paragraph directly related to the Jersey Devil. So using what I've always thought are the standards we apply here, the Coleman ref is better than OR or synthesizing on my part. I'd even be willing to have some consensus about that info., and in fact opened up a RS request on the source. My problem isn't so much the JD edits or article, it is that I'm getting a WP:SPA feeling with User:Bloodofox and I did not appreciate being given incorrect editing "advice" in the edit summaries. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for a measured and polite reponse, @TeeVeeed:, to my rather rude and intemperate one; I'm afraid I was upset by seeing that Coleman has unintentionally propagated some misinformation into pop culture and took that out on you, which I should not have. This process—going into an area on Wikipedia which lots of questionable sourcing and trying to winnow out accurate information—is always going to be tense and a bit painful for people who have been working there. I know bloodofox can be very dogged in working on folklore topics, but even delicately handled, there is always going to be an aspect of "wiping out". I was very fond of paranormal and cryptozoological literature when I was younger (Back before the Web was a thing, youngins. And I wore an onion on my belt, as was the fashion in those days.) and in retrospect, a lot of it was built up like a game of "telephone": one book would copy from an older one, and gradually coincidences would be exaggerated, small details would change, irregularities would be overlooked, in the interests of building up a better story. The Web is already loaded with pages that will tell you all the different stories that have been told about Ogopogo or Champ or Mokele-Mbembe, and Wikipedia repeating them uncritically doesn't add much value. Dissecting what material is original and what is legend added after the fact is a much more valuable service to our readers. I'll try to leave some commentary on the Jersey Devil later. Choess (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

And User:Jytdog. Yep. Bloodofox has appealed for assistance but only assistance in Bloodofox's agenda to wipe-out cryptozoology. I think that Bloodofox either needs to get some oversight or stop editing on the topic. And yes, many good edits. The problem is the agenda-driven edits which delete (good) content and references. I would say that Bloodofox is a WP:SPA, and not only that using that SPA destructively sometimes.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

And I would advise you to re-read every comment from an experienced editor made on this thread. Above, you actually raised this diff as problematic (where content was removed that was sourced to "vernon kids" (a site for 4th graders) and this which says it is sourced in part from Wikipedia, and you say you restored it. (which you did) Oy. Just oy. Please do read WP:NOTEVERYTHING - it isn't long. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, User: Jytdog I already said that I know I made a mistake there re-adding a dead link and whatever else I did wrong there. This complaint is about incorrect advice given in summaries, and WP:Spa mostly. It wasn't until later that I noticed that User:Bloodofox had been deleting Coleman refs in particular. Not including everything (specific to the Native american info.?)may be worth talking about on the article TP, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is incorrect policy declarations/demands in edit summaries and elsewhere and acting like a SPA. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The agenda of Bloodofox is making itself apparent. From agreeing to merge "Cryptid" with "List of cryptids" only because he wanted the material from Cryptid completely removed from the encyclopedia. he is now on a mission to do just that as with this recent comment to me. It also appears that even if someone wants to help by properly sourcing and weeding a list, he still won't go along with it until it is completely dead. This is the intransigence we have to deal with, the negative comments we have to deal with on our own talk pages and the article's talk pages. he does not work and play well with others, at least on this particular topic. It's becomming more and more clear every day. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to one day producing a sub article for my user page entitled The Agenda of Bloodofox for all my nefarious deeds. Or maybe something like the Bloodofoxicon, further promoting dastardly confusion about whether or not my ancient user name is Blood o' Fox or Blood-of-Ox. But in all seriousness, all users are welcome to follow the discussion about what to do with this problematic list. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Can I just point out to everyone, in case it was not blindingly obvious, that there is a big difference between opposing a pro-pseudoscience view and promoting an anti-pseudoscience view? And in fact neither is halfway as problematic as promoting a pro-pseudoscience view. We must never lose sight of the fact that cryptids are mythological. A cryptid ceases to be a cryptid once there is persuasive evidence that it actually exists. Guy (Help!) 01:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, one of the common criticisms that biologists make about cryptozoologists is that cryptozoologists have never found what cryptozoologists call a cryptid. Meanwhile, biologists regularly describe and catalogue new species (there's some discussion about this at cryptozoology). Of course, this is no surprise: cryptozoology uses a lot of science-sounding faux-taxonomical terminology but shuns the scientific method. While ultimately whimsical and probably a lot of fun for adherents, cryptozoology is in the same league as ghost hunting: a lot of technical devices for hunting entities from the folklore record and fancy-sounding internal terminology, and yet total academic rejection because it's cut and dry, classic pseudoscience.

These comments make me feel as though I should highlight a few things here. Biologists aside, it's important to consider why folklorists don't give cryptozoologists the time of day (albeit now and then they'll study the cryptozoologists themselves). Academics reject the term cryptid and the Pokémon-like concept behind it: they're not looking to catch sneaky aquatic dinosaurs or trap extremely deceptive ape-men. Instead, folklorists aim to describe and discuss the complex social, historical, and cultural factors that led (and lead) to the development of these figures—and what it all means. The word cryptid, coined and used by cryptozoologists to imply that a creature from the folklore record is just hiding somewhere, is not in general usage and remains totally obscure to the general population (again, see discussion at cryptozoology).

As for the state of Wikipedia's folklore coverage, I think it's important that we consider this: without the efforts of our geology-minded editors, we'd have a plethora of emic-voiced articles espousing the virtues of considering the earth to be flat or hollow. Yet imagine if our geology articles (such as geology) never had any geologist editors on board the project. That's essentially where we're at with most of our folklore articles. Many of them are written in cryptozoology POV to this day, outright describing diverse entities from Japanese folklore to the Philippines as cryptids and salivating at claims of sightings while linking to sites like cryptomundo and citing cryptozoologists like Loren Coleman. And this is a big problem: take a glance at all these articles.

It says a lot that this project once had such an active Cryptozoology Wikoproject and yet it doesn't seem to have ever had a Wikiproject Folklore or Wikiproject Folkloristics—the latter would have nipped a lot of these problems in the bud. Some active folklorists involved in the project at an early date could have really helped turn to the site into a great place for folklore coverage. Instead, the pseudoscience has come to dominate, despite policies like WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:UNDUE. Along with the ads and dead links, stripping out the pseudoscience is a necessary step for improving these articles.

Of course, cryptozoology shouldn't be conflated with general folk belief about figures such as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. I've seen some users doing this. Cryptozoologists are a tiny group today, largely enabled by the internet, and no doubt many of our Wikipedia articles are their biggest promotional tool. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Kurt Grüng

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

---

I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but something unusual appears to be going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Grüng. We've had a bunch of SPAs, a user who isn't an SPA but appears to have done almost nothing but deletion related tasks, a user who hasn't edited in five months returning just to vote, and an IP user who tried to close the AFD. I put a note to this effect on the page for the closer, but I wanted to bring it up here in case this is a pattern anyone has seen before. It just smells fishy. agtx 23:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The IP address on that page has been blocked for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The other accounts may very well be SPA's or meatpuppets, but the votes within themselves doesn't warrant a block. I can close this AFD.... stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

AFD closed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

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

Complaint about conduct of User:Jarandhel

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

---

(Expansive edition)

To begin, there are multiple points to this user complaint. Specifically:

1. Uncivil behaviour in a debate (what sparked off my investigation)
2. Potential single-purpose account
3. Conflict of interest in contents / Vested interest
4. Multiple poor debate/article-writing styles including but not limited to:

• Synthesis
• Pushing fringe perspectives
• Pushing non-thorough research on fringe topics
• Personal attacks and general lack of civility

First WP:CIVIL. This user has on multiple occasions, including right now (for which I have repeatedly pointed to the cause of incivility and requested it be ceased, but often it is followed shortly thereafter with more incivility - ranging from passive-aggressive behaviour to outright misusing refuted and retracted statements (by myself). This pattern of behaviour has been exclusively aimed at those who are in favour of Delete or Merge in this instance.

Second, it is very pertinent to address the behaviour of the overall account, having the appearance of a single-single purpose account in how it only is ever involved in the editing of a very small number of pages. This number of pages (although ignoring user page/talk) can be counted in this space without exploding this document's size:

1. Otherkin
2. Talk:Otherkin
3. Elenari
4. Talk:Elenari
5. Wikipedia talk: What Wikipedia is not
6. Talk:Indigo children
7. Talk:Vampire lifestyle
8. Talk:Reiki
9. Talk:Raven paradox
10. Reiki
11. Clinical lycanthropy
12. Lycanthropy
13. Theistic Satanism
14. Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance
15. Talk:Theistic Satanism

This list may look diverse, but it must not be ignored two key facts: this list goes all the way back to 2005 and is exhaustive of non-user pages. Adding user pages would not be significantly more long. A third, more serious fact exists here is that in - at the minimum - 90% of edits for pages that are themselves not otherkin, it is for the singular purpose of editing links to, about or otherwise involving the otherkin page (to be abundantly clear, I was not able to locate any edits that did not pertain to otherkin, so I would assert based on that 100%, but reduced the number in case I missed anything). Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that in that this account only becomes active after long periods of time when there are "controversial" edits to one of the earlier cited pages, most notably otherkin which the author does not agree with. See also notes about conflict of interest which weigh in heavily.

• 13 Oct 2005 - Initial activation, during which time he debated in Talk:Otherkin and later added, interesting enough due to current deletion debate, a reference titled "Lycanthropy--psychopathological and psychodynamical aspects". This activation continues on for the remainder of the month of October, but then quiets down through December until April 2006 when a single edit is made in the talk page again.

• 8 April 2008 - Second activation, three years later (there is a single interlude in the midterm consisting of a single edit to Talk:Reiki). The editor makes a non-productive statement to the Talk:Raven_paradox page which strongly suggests a complete lack of familiarity of the topic; there are no responses to the question, since it is clearly answered in the remainder of the conversation as well as the article itself. Within short course, the editor is back into editing otherkin and the associated talk page as well as revisiting Reiki. This continues on as a storm through mid-April, but again quickly dies off terminating altogether in the first days of August.

• 7 December 2011 - Third activation, another three years later (without any interludes). Once again this appears to be in response to edits to Talk:Otherkin as well as associated Lycanthropy page. Incidentally, this is also the time at which the request for wikiquette assistance was filed. Minor disruption due to holidays. At this point, a neutrality dispute had been filed by the editor due to association of otherkin with clinical lycanthropy; however at this time it is noted by multiple editors that there is a significant conflict of interest.

• 30 Oct 2016 - Fourth and current activation. The user showed up again, allegedly in response to vandalism on their page. This activation is the most pertinant, see remainder of complaint.

Hopefully, this assists in demonstrating a single-purpose behaviour within this account.

Now, I will address what I see as a significant conflict of interest by this author. As previously noted, this author outright declares upon entry into the arena that he is the owner of otherkin.net as well as anotherwiki.org. It bears noting that at times, these pages have been attempted to be used as sources for citations; at present, there is no direct reference (although there is a link to a DMOZ category which is headlined by AnOtherWiki as well as containing Otherkin.net), but the direct correlation between the author's ownership and oversight of these sites coupled with their disregard for wikipedia policies to maintain a page that only serves to validate their own fringe beliefs represents a signficiant case of vested interest on their part. Specifically, combatively going after the introduction of anything that might be seen as negative of the alleged otherkin subgroup demonstrates a defensiveness that negates from the potential accuracy and neutrality of the wiki article. In their place, often times there are placed in items which only lend to the suggestion of the "realism" of the purported beliefs.

Finally, I shall conclude with the multiple poor debate/article-writing styles which consist of [[the following:

• Synthesis - I have noted the behaviour of the editor is to often bring into the debate what amounts to synthesis of multiple articles' perspectives in order to push their own perspective (interestingly, they also like to accuse of this at the same time). Take for instance the following clip from one of my arguments:

Quoting the Spirits of Another Sort article: "Another example of type maintenance occurs in an article by Th'Elf, who writes of Otherkin: It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk. Some include vampires under the label and others don't, but there have also been disagreements about the inclusion of most of the member groups as well as the label itself. Hosts and walk-ins are also included, though furries are right out." Jarandhel (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Another source: Venetia Laura Delano Robertson. "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16, no. 3 (2013): 7-30. Full text available here: 1: "While there are Therianthropes who engage in Furry Fandom, the two are distinct subcultures and both eagerly encourage this differentiation, the former keen to disassociate the perceived frivolity of fandom and role-play from the spiritual solemnity of their relationship with animals." Jarandhel (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

and again later doing the action while at the same time slinging an accusation (and other errors noted below):

Your source quotes therian.wikia.com as its source of information. Allow me to do the same: "There are many different types of Otherkin, but some of them include: Therian (Earth based animals), Dragonkin, Vampirekin, Faekin, Merkin (Mermaids/ Mer people), Alienkin, Fictionkin, and Factkin." http://therian.wikia.com/wiki/Otherkin Again, as I've already explained to you and as was stated extremely clearly in the Laycock source, therianthropes are a subset of otherkin. There is no "contradiction" between that point in these articles, you are simply misinterpreting them. Even simply looking at the DMOZ.org Otherkin Category will show therianthropes are a subcategory of otherkin. Jarandhel (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

which commits the egregious error of utilizing entirely unverifiable original works, including citing DMOZ, which is not an authoritative source, merely an aggregation point along with the wiki (attempting to bleed the authority of the paper's citation as an endorsement of authority to the entire source). Of critical importance as I note in my first quote of the document is that the author, while citing raw text from the aforementioned wiki, actually sets out and articulates the concept in his own words - going directly in the face of the given definition in the previous document utilizing the term as well as the otherkin page itself, using identical language. All the while the author is utilizing a paper where he rejects the definition provided, but adopts the language of why it should not be merged into furry. At this point, the editor has not put forth further evidence why the page should be stand alone, but merely utilizes this two-paper synthesis repeatedly while also making aggressive uncivilly loaded and impatient phrasing.

• Fringe content / Unsubstantial research - Largely covered in expansive edition, mostly user is utilizing fringe sources primarily and treating them as authority without meeting the requirements.

• Personal attacks - This is the most egregious offence by the editor, and I will take the time now to list off the worst, and ones with most possible consequence to the outcome of the debate as well. First, I will cite the introductory portion of the editor's text:

I actually found out about this nomination for deletion in a rather unusual way - a vandal on my wiki going by the name "Nafokramkat, Destroyer of Planet Substub" moved one of the pages there to Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination) tonight. That seemed rather specific, so I took a look over here and found this AfD going on.

while this may serve as a somewhat harmless statement, it is clear that the editor's position is already loaded on the pretense of a negative situation. Shortly thereafter, I point out that he has intentionally introduced bias by starting with a claim of vandalism specifically which is in bad faith to the conversation

later followed by upon being pointed out

I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or procedure which would allow the administrator of an unaffiliated wiki to report vandalism of their wiki by a Wikipedia user and have any action taken here. If I'm wrong about that, please point me to where I would do so. The evidence is easily provided: 1 2 3 4 5. I thought it was important to note what brought me here, as it is pertinent to my own biases in this AfD discussion.

then

I would personally be much more interested in administrators validating the IP of the user present in this discussion whose username (KATMAKROFAN) is actually an anagram of the username of the vandal on my wiki (Nafokramkat), if indeed there is a wikipedia policy that would allow checkuser under these circumstances. Jarandhel (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Where the editor in question now states a specific user by name. It is at this point replies cease in this thread, however, even after my additional followup, no effort or attempt is made to negate or otherwise remove the offending and loaded content in this vein or any other. Later on, I had my efforts to retrieve a paywalled article somewhat frustrated, so filed to have it retrieved and/or summarized by the appropriate parties to which I was met with equal measure of shock and gratitude when the editor produced the article for me, but felt it necessary to again take another chance to take a shot

I guess you didn't try simply searching for the title yourself? Full Text via archive.org Jarandhel (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

at which point I simply went with the typical advice, and allowed it to slide and thanked the editor while gently reminding the editor of conduct requirements. Unfortunately, this was not the last incident of the editor making use of these types of tacts, later in the debate becoming aggressive again when the circumstances demanded he provide further evidence to his point

From the first quote from Spirits of Another Sort by Laycock, AGAIN: "It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk." I believe that firmly establishes the super-class/sub-class relationship, in what we have already established is a reliable source. Jarandhel (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Shorly after which I prepared this document since it became necessary to seek external remediation to this situation that I had been unable to satisfactory solve myself. (since the time of this last post, more has been posted, but it has been unremarkable. It contains not much else in terms of accusation, but more hampered logic which I again refuted, etc.).

At this point I would like to conclude by stating that I cannot suggest any course of action, nor comment upon my own behaviour as it would be inherently self-serving to do either; both to my side of this debate, which is on-going, but also to myself directly. I will state, in no uncertain terms, that I have presented the facts here with citations in the manner consistent with how I understand them to be, including the alleged fact that I did not participate in the behaviours that I am accusing the aforementioned editor of conducting, and have addressed to the best of my ability any short-comings pointed out to me in my own arguments and style. As such, by these circumstances, you're more then welcome and encouraged to weigh in on myself as well, and the argument if you have any points that can break the impasse which is as yet unresolved. I for one would like to continue on in this debate, however I also do not wish to be personally attacked any more - I want my points to be refuted coolly through sound logical reasons, not personal grudges, pet theories, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianmang (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever seen such a long ANI submission. If you want anyone to even read this, let alone act on it, I recommend that you reduce it by at least 90%, since nobody is going to wade through all 7000 words. RolandR (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I second with RolandR. This feels more like a graduate thesis than a complaint. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

30,000 bytes removed, linked back to "expansive edition" for anybody who needs more context. Thanks for the advice @RolandR. Tianmang (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've read it nonetheless. The matter should be dealt with at the AfD. (but I do have the impression that the poster may be wittingly or unwittingly trying to remove opposition to their view of the subject) DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I did not request any specific action beyond the users' conduct be evaluated and acted upon to prevent the type of behaviour noted which is disruptive to the conversation. Anything else, by all means defer until the AfD has concluded. His arguments, while I disagree with, are fine and I will continue to debate him - but only politely. I wish only for such consideration be both ways. Tianmang (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Reduced copy put in, original linked at top Tianmang (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - one has to wonder why someone who seems unable to say anything in less than 5000 words (this applies to both main parties in this discussion) would be editing an encyclopedia, whose express purpose is to summarize what has been written about a given subject. If you cannot summarize your own thoughts, how can you summarize someone else's? John from Idegon (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Aerozeplyn

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

---

• Aerozeplyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mucoid plaque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aerozeplyn is apparently a True Believer, see the history of the linked article. I think he needs to be topic banned from mucoid plaque, a non-existent concept promoted by quacks selling colonic irrigation. Guy (Help!) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Discretionary sanctions - Aerozeplyn is indefinitely topic banned from all pages (including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and Wikipedia pages) relating to pseudoscience (particularly including but not limited to medical pseudoscience), broadly construed. I was gonna say "support because complaining about 'Wikipedia propaganda' in articles is a sign that someone is WP:NOTHERE" but he has been notified of the relevant discretionary sanctions, I am an uninvolved admin, and (looking over his article contributions) he doesn't think that scientific consensus is a thing -- let's just get this over with. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian, would you reconsider? It looks like you're indefinitely banning me because of past actions. My recent edits on November 2nd have made no violations. I have looked into this, and if I am mistaken, please let me know. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozeplyn (talk • contribs) 06:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Correction: your recent edits on November 2nd were a continuation of the very problems that got you blocked to begin with, cited WP:FRINGE sources that completely failed our reliable sourcing guidelines, were reverted almost immediately, and are a sign that you do not understand science consensus enough to properly handle pseudoscientific topics. You are still welcome to edit within the framework of mainstream science, and doing a good job there could demonstrate that you've learned what scientific consensus is and that you can be trusted to work with pseudoscience articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess you're right: nothing to be gained by letting this play out any longer. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE Duyetkaka

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

---

Duyetkaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - all they do is inserting links to menz.vn into various places, like this way. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked You could have also reported him at WP:AIV. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Apparent legal threat by 68.145.32.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

---

This IP isn't very coherent, but this edit appears to be making a legal threat. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's coherent. Blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

• Can somebody ? The threats continue. _Muffled ^Pocketed 21:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin Barber

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

---

Can an admin look at the plague of recent WP:BLP-violating additions to this article and determine if it is necessary to either block the editors or protect the article? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a week (i.e. until after the election). We could block the IPs involved but they're all dynamic, so there's probably not much point. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

IP editor 207.161.217.209 vs Drmies

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

---

Someone needs to review the edits being made by 207.161.217.209, and probably block the IP too. The IP has been mass-reverting edits by Drmies, edits which Drmies had been making to undo the changes of a banned editor. I have gone through only a few edits by the IP, reverting some that seemed particularly unhelpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: They were reversions that Drmies made on the basis of my being a sockpuppet. While I am shocked that one could have reached that conclusion, I requested to be unblocked and was found to definitely not be the sockpuppet by DeltaQuad via checkuser, hence why I am no longer blocked. Should Drmies' mass reversion not, then, be itself reverted? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC) cc: Dustin V. S.

No. One might hope that each edit to each article would be assessed on its own merits. Mass reverting every change another editor makes is generally totally inappropriate and could be considered harassment. Other editors can decide whether you are a sock of a banned editor or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I, too, would have hoped those edits would have been assessed on their own merits before being reverted in the first place. So how would you suggest we proceed, FreeKnowledgeCreator? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

While you're correct, given that Drmies made an inappropriate mass reversion it should be responded to on equal terms, should it not? In other words, Drmies mass reversion should be reverted. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

207.161.217.209, I suggest, for one thing, that you stop harassing Drmies by reverting all his recent edits, many of which seem justified (I did not look at all of them). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: It's certainly not harassing Drmies. Did you not notice that I only reverted reversions that he made on the basis of my being a sockpuppet (which has since been disproven)? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

And you haven't addressed Mr rnddude's argument. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not an argument, it's an assertion, claiming that Drmies' edits were inappropriate but not giving a reason. Given that some at least of Drmies edits look good, you should not have reverted them. Your behavior can be considered harassment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, reason time. Drmies mass reverted an editor's edits on false pretenses. This can equally be considered harrassment, especially with sockpuppetry assertion to boot and a violation of NPA. I am certain Drmies did not act out of any malice, but, it seems he made a mistake. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head, Mr rnddude. I have no reason to believe that Drmies did this out of any malice for me personally, but if there were a claim to be made for harassment, I would certainly be on firmer ground than he. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Would you be able to argue that they are good based on the rationale he gave for them, irrespective of whether that rationale still stands? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

So that leaves the question: how should we proceed to undo the blanket revert? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Short answer; edit by edit. If FreeKnowledgeCreator believes that some of your edits are unnecessary or impact negatively, then they can either work with you and have your good edits fixed. That assumes you'll co-operate and not get into conflict. I don't know which edits FKC is referring to, I have gone through the last 15 or so and haven't noticed any poor edits but maybe a couple of not really necessary ones. Either way, an admin has closed this so you and FKC should take it to one or the other's talk page. Calm discussion either way. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Rule one Drmies is always right Rule two When Drmies is wrong, see rule one

Now being serious for a minute, I spot checked the edits reverted by the IP, and the ones I looked at were basically minor formatting changes and infobox tweaks. I would leave them be for the time being, as they're not worth making a fuss about. Also, any editor is free to leave a banned user's edits in place if they are prepared to endorse and take responsibility for them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't want to make a fuss about it, and I'm certainly not always right (though I appreciate the thought)--as long as someone blocks that IP, for obvious reasons. Gotta run. FKC, thank you for your comments here. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Zackmann08 - long term abuse, personal attacks, disruptive editing

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

---

I am the editor of the page of Pal Milkovics. This page has been on Wikipedia since 2008, in this year's August I have start to update the page as a first time editor, as the article has not been updated since quiet some times. User:Zackmann08 from the first moment was harsh and very unwelcoming with me as new editor. He has nominated the article for deletion of which has been closed without consensus (of course I have had no problem with the nomination). Since then I am trying to update the article but he is deleting almost all my edits as well re-nominated the article for deletion. I several time asked him in his and mine/the page's talk pages to stop harassing me and the article. But he is constantly keep deleting edits, references and accuses me with personal interest. The article has 16 references each of them, according the guidelines, could be a proper reference (please note I tried to add even more) and can establish notability. I would like to have your help to stop him, as he is indeed a very experienced editor, and he tries everything to delete the article and stop me editing. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pikipaki2222: No; every article on Wikipedia- if poor sourcing is seen- is able to end up at AfD. You see, it's not the number of sources, but their quality; and those look suspiciously like blogs and zines mostly? In any case, this is a content dispute, and this board is for behavioural conduct requiring administrative assistance. Since that is not the case here, this thread will be closed soon. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pál Milkovics (2nd nomination) and make your case for keeping the article- remember to base your arguments on wikipedia policy, rather than you being the article's owner! Goood luck. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: thank you for your quick reply. I don't seek here resolution on the content or argue for the quality of the references, but the behavioural conduct of User:Zackmann08 please look into it. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I see Pikipaki2222. Yes, I saw your allegation on the AfD page; if you want that examined here, you will need to provide evidence that Zackmann08 did attempt such such things. Be mindful, that here all behaviours are examined, and the casting of aspersions- if they are discovered to be unfounded- is viewed very dimly, as being personal attacks, and sanctionable. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: thank you for the comments. I've been typing up my own response which is below. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Response: The above claims are mostly false and ignores the multiple times I have attempted to assist this editor. A few points I would like to be sure are noted.

• The user was accused AND FOUND GUILTY OF Sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pikipaki2222/Archive for the results. The user repeatedly accuses me of trying to block them. I reported them for sock puppetry one time and was correct. Despite it being explained multiple times, they still seem to believe I blocked them despite the fact that I am not an admin and thus am not capable of blocking them.
• The most recent attempts to add references (see this diff) was a problem for multiple reasons. First of all, it introduced massive images into the reference section which is of course not the way to reference things. But additionally, these images appear to be either scans or photos of a newspaper. They contain images that were printed in the paper, which as understand it, is a WP:COPYVIO. You can't take an image that was printed in a newspaper and upload it to Wikipedia anymore that I could download an image from CNN.com and upload it (without permission).
• Despite the user's claim that they do not have a WP:COI, the ONLY edits they have made on Wikipedia have been related to this article. They even created a WP:SOCK to make edits to the article. I find it hard to believe no WP:COI exist. The user has also turned around and accused ME of having a conflict of interest. (see [71]). I think any editor who knows anything about how wikipedia works can take one look at my edit history and know this is laughably false. I have over 28,000 edits on a wide range of topics over the course of nearly 5 years. Compared to this editor who, as I previously stated, has edited nothing outside of the context of this page. (Classic case of redirecting blame?)
• Pikipaki2222 has on more than one occasion suggested or outright stated that I have threatened them. ([72] for example). I would ask that this claim be supported with even a single diff where I have "threatened" in any way, shape or form. I have placed templated warnings on the user's page using WP:TWINKLE when they have violated policies, such as WP:INFOBOXIMAGE but these are NOT threats and to suggest they are is wildly inappropriate and an attempt to cast aspersions.

I understand that Pikipaki2222 is a new editor to wikipedia. I will admit that in some of my first contacts with them I may have bitten a newbie or been a bit impersonal by just using templated notices. But NOTHING in my conduct warrants the level of admin intervention. This, in my opinion, is a new editor who doesn't like the way things are working out for them so has decided to report me in hopes of getting their way. I would ask that these actions be taken into consideration. If there are any questions regarding my conduct or any issues I can address, please let me know. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

To avoid WP:CANVASSING I want to visibly ping other editors who have been involved with this issue. The folowing editors have either left messages on Pikipaki2222's talk page, have edited Pál Milkovics or were involved in the previous discussion to delete the article. @Lemongirl942, Vanjagenije, Ponyo, JJMC89, Meters, and SwisterTwister: Please add any comments you may have including and especially any comments about any behavior of mine you believe was inappropriate. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Having looked over the history provided by Zackmann08, I would personally suggest to Pikipaki2222 that- having presented no evidence to outweigh that subsequently produced- you withdraw your original post, and request this thread be closed. As soon as possible, actually. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:. Please believe me this was my last resort, I have tried since August to engage with him in a sensible communication (as you advise, I have warned him that I will seek for outside help many many weeks ago). I am a really new editor and I didn't want to be disrespectful or accuse anyone. I came to here to learn and to be active member of this great community. I will pull together all of my arguments, allegations back from August until today and will trust in your judgement. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Pinging Ritchie333, who closed the first AfD and has not yet been mentioned.

Based on an inexhaustive look at the situation, it looks to me like Zackman was wrong about restoring the BLPPROD and in bringing up sources not being in English (which isn't relevant), and if this AfD ends with a keep or no consensus close my advice to him would be to take a little break from the article. That said, there's nothing Zackman did that would merit admin intervention. In terms of article content, he's generally correct. The sources repeatedly added are generally poor quality, and that they're being repeatedly added, along with some trivia and unsourced content, is problematic. Advice to Pikipaki2222 would be to go through the guidelines for what's considered a reliable source and the guideline for establishing notability, and to present an argument at the new AfD using the good sources among those found so far, and if the article is deleted to remember that "not notable" doesn't mean "not important", "not successful", etc. -- it's just a function of coverage in high-quality sources. The sources don't have to be in English, but they do need to be independent of the subject and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, however. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:. Please believe me this was my last resort, I have tried since August to engage with him in a sensible communication (as you advise, I have warned him that I will seek for outside help many many weeks ago). I am a really new editor and I didn't want to be disrespectful or accuse anyone. I came to here to learn and to be active member of this great community. I will pull together all of my arguments, allegations back from August until today and will trust in your judgement. With all due respect I don't like to withdraw as for me it takes more time to produce my reply as I do not have thousands of edits, and it takes a lot time to go through on different policies, guidelines. I, again would like to state, that I came here to learn and be and editor, yes this is my first article, but this should be not be a ground to accuse me with personal interest (as with that everybody with his first article about a bio would be like that), I would like to finish this as perfect as possible (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Rhododendrites: thank you for your suggestion, as in the closing arguments were mentioned (first afd) the sources, references might seems unreliable to the outside (not from CEE region) eyes, but they are absolutely independent and reliable sources in Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. Actually no one really looked into it everyone just mention they "seem" not reliable, throughout the first deletion process I have provided a comprehensive background on all of the sources. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pikipaki2222: It looks like Lemongirl942 did look into it and posted her analysis at the end of that AfD. "Source" is not simply the root domain or the publication. What is "reliable" in this case also concerns the author, what it's being used for, the degree of connection to the subject, etc. There's a lot of gray area, but the burden is typically on the one arguing that a source should count to convince others that they it's reliable according to our guidelines, and that it amounts to "significant coverage". The deck is unfortunately stacked against subjects whose notability is based in non-English sources. There are English language sources most editors of the English Wikipedia are familiar with and know are reliable, so we don't have to argue every time we want to say that e.g. New York Times, Oxford University Press, or The Atlantic are generally reliable sources or that TMZ is not. A source being in another language doesn't itself affect reliability, but they're less well known to others and harder to assess for reliability, so those who want to use them have a little bit of work to do to make the case that you understand the guidelines about reliable sources and that these sources qualify. That's sort of a pain, I know, and it makes for an imperfect encyclopedia, but it's the system we have at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pikipaki2222 and Rhododendrites: in that vein, why has an article not been created on the Czech language Wikipedia??? Pikipaki2222 English is clearly not your first language, though I applaud your efforts!!! Trying to edit an encyclopedia in your non-dominant language is not easy... But have you considered creating this article on the Czech language Wikipedia??? You might have much better luck there... Just a thought. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: thank you for the responses. If and when a consensus is reached on the article I will 100% stand by that consensus. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that since accusing me and cast aspersions, Pikipaki2222 has made zero other edits. Despite making multiple accusations in this thread, they have present zero evidence that I have harassed or threatened them. I would like an admin to consider their actions.--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to ask the admin to be patient as I have a job and a life, and as newbie here it takes time for me to gather all the relevant guidelines, policies and present them in the right form (of which many time was pointed out harshly by Zackmann08. As well it takes time to go through all the logs and collect Zackmann08's all disruptive and abusing edits, comments. I am being patient of Zackmann08's abuses since 3 month, I believe couple of more days, me to defend my case won't hurt anybody.Pikipaki2222 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pikipaki2222: I say this as, I believe, a neutral party here (without having any background with either participant, as far as I know, and complete unfamiliarity with the subject): as frustrating as I know the experience probably is, if your priority is the article, your time is much better spent gathering sources and arguing along they constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" (i.e. notability). I haven't had an exhaustive look at all of Zackman's comments, but from what I can tell he acknowledges, more or less, where he was wrong and admin intervention in a scenario like this would only be to prevent problems, not to punish. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pikipaki2222: Once again you say I have been abusive for 3 months. How? Show me one diff where you believe I have abused you in any way, shape or form. You cannot make accusations without having anything to back them up. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As it has been 4 days and Pikipaki2222 has failed to produce ANY evidence to support their bizarre claims, I would ask that an admin please close this as a case of a new user trying to cast aspersions because they arent getting their way. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Before you do: since this was about "long term abuse" and "disruptive editing", I just wanted to point out that a pattern of WP:OWN exists WRT fire-related articles. I don't have the time right now to go through everything, so I'll just highlight the most obvious example. Zackmann created {{Alaska fire departments}} by duplicating the contents of portions of {{Alaska}}, except that the latter template isn't full of redlinks like the former. He reverted my efforts to improve the template here and here under the guise of consistency. Let's go back to the edit which created the template, shall we? There is neither a "City of Badger" nor a "Badger Fire Department". The Badger and Moose Creek CDPs and portions of the Steele Creek CDP along and near the Nordale Road bridge across the Chena River are served by the North Star Volunteer Fire Department. NSVFD is partially administered by the Fairbanks North Star Borough for tax purposes, since the state constitution grants taxation powers to boroughs and cities but not to service areas, which in the case of rural fire departments set the policy for their administration. Likewise, other boroughs don't have a borough fire department, but rather have localized VFDs operating under the same or similar structure. This includes the rare cases of fire departments in the Unorganized Borough outside of incorporated cities, whose taxation structure is adminstered under the executive branch of the state government. First of all, what's "consistent" about creating content referencing non-existent entities and other blatant factual inaccuracies? Furthermore, how does "consistency" trump usefulness? I let this go at the time because there's more important work to do than edit warring, plus there's 3RR to take into consideration. Zackmann's version is certainly an exercise in cleverness in that it finds four different ways to link the same two articles, but is in no way more useful than what I was attempting to do. At this point, coverage of this subtopic amounts to a category and the template and not much else of substance. Let's use common sense here. I realize that we've reached the point where dumping content takes precedence over collaboration time after time, but we have plenty of holes needing filling in when it comes to this subtopic. The impression I get is that he wants to pick low-hanging fruit and claim credit for something, but expects others to come along and do the real work when it comes to this subtopic, evident in all these long-persistent redlinks. As you can see from my explanation above, I would be the one with the expertise to fill in those holes in coverage. However, the notion that I'm welcome to do all this work so long as I agree to another editor's veto power sends one message and one message only: "count me out". I did contribute some relevant images to Commons which were published before 1978 without a copyright notice. OTOH, I always think twice about contributing any of my own photos when it comes to content which is being developed more with puffery than substance in mind. Someone responded to a previous statement I made to that effect saying I was being "selfish", when it's more a matter of the need anyone should have to protect their intellectual property from misuse. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that the concepts of consistency and usefulness should never appear in the same sentence as the word trump. EEng 23:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: so your response is to bring up edits I made over a year and a half ago? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, @RadioKAOS: what do your comments about my edits have to do with this discussion? And @Pikipaki2222: I am still waiting for any sort of evidence to back up your claims. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I no longer have a full-time net connection, plus I have all sorts of things going on in real life. Your response here was to aggressively avoid the substance of my argument and act as though feeding your need for attention is more important than that or anything else I previously mentioned? Please. I was about to remove this sewer pit of a drama board from my watchlist the other day when I noticed a thread centered upon you and your editing activity. Whenever I see your username on my watchlist, it usually entails edits revealing POINTy behavior similar to what I describe above. You say I "bring up edits I made over a year and a half ago". That means that for a year and a half, there has been content lying around that causes more harm than good to the encyclopedia, evidently stuff you made up out of thin air under the guise of "consistency", whose purpose is to allow you to take credit for something instead of credibly expanding our coverage of what's notable about a subtopic. Does that mean that I have to waste even more time dragging it through TFD? If you want to take that route, then you should be expected to hang by your own rope. The one editor who incessantly messes with others' edits to infoboxes of political biographies in the name of "consistency" inserted the signature of John Conyers into the infobox of Don Young, where it remained for well over a year. I didn't revert it because that editor appears very confident in what they're doing. How dare I expect someone else to have to answer to their own brain-dead fuckups rather than using BEBOLD and/or SOFIXIT to address the effects and not the cause, I guess. In this case, I've already made it clear that I'm not going to further clean up something when you feel entitled to exercise veto power over those edits while making no significant efforts of your own to improve it. There's already too many OWN editors across the encyclopedia doing exactly that. If you need another, more recent example, Sockeye Fire was originally created with an unnecessarily long title, which I moved to a more concise title a while back. Your response was another move so minor as to perhaps be meaningless, plus other not-necessarily-helpful edits, based upon some obscure particular project guideline. Okay, whatever. The information from the BLM I read last year stated that the major fire action in Alaska occurred in sparsely-populated wilderness areas in the Yukon, Koyukuk and Kuskokwim river drainages west and northwest of Interior Alaska. Rather than recognizing that and reflecting what's notable, you decided to once again go after low-hanging fruit and toy around with this one blatant WP:NOTNEWS exercise about a fire which received a certain amount of media coverage because it happened in a populated area. No wonder so many are so reticent about making major improvements to encyclopedic coverage when it's subject to conditions like these. Things weren't like this when I first came here over a decade ago. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: wow that was a lot of rambling with not a lot of content... I never edited John Conyers or Don Young so no idea what you are talking about there... As for the moving of pages I don't understand what that has to do with anything? You seem to think I am trying to take credit for other's work which literally makes no sense. I'm going to be honest your message is so rampling, so sarcastic and so confrontational that I really don't know how to respond. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as this is a page to notify Administrators, would an admin care to comment? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as how you don't want to deal with it, I'm about ready to drop this page from my watchlist and move on. If you want to offer the impression of leading the charge in a certain topic area but are doing it in such a way that others can see the smoke and mirrors and lack of substance involved, I'll just quit contributing to anything having to do with that topic and let you run it into the ground all by yourself. Besides, the fact that "consistency" is code for fucking with the good faith of other editors is hardly limited strictly to this episode. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely--hold on. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Tina Helme

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

---

The user Tina Helme has only been editing their userpage (see Special:Contributions/Tina Helme), which seems quite promotional. I am not sure if action needs to be taken, but this might be a case of WP:COI. RedPanda25 18:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems a pretty blatant, if misguided, attempt at SEO to me. Gricehead (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If so, it has failed, as User pages are NOINDEXed - Arjayay (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to point out to them that the {{Index}} template can be used to index pages? RedPanda25 19:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have deleted the userpage per WP:U5, blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC).

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

Snow Rise repeatedly baiting me into violating an IBAN

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

---

[73]

Snow Rise (talk · contribs) showed up about a week late [74] to an ANI thread involving my (already-resolved) dispute with another user (PogingJuan), and started repeatedly making veiled references to an unrelated IBAN I am subject to that has not been discussed on-wiki for nine months.[75][76] He has admitted to not knowing anything about, or having any interest in assisting with, my dispute with PogingJuan, and his only past interactions with me were over a year ago in the dispute that led to the IBAN.

I am now unable to directly address his (baseless) accusations that I have been subject to "more than a few" ANI-imposed sanctions without directly mentioning the other user with whom I am IBANned. I say "baseless" because the only sanction AN/ANI has ever imposed on me was the IBAN in question -- Snow Rise is very clearly bringing up the IBAN in an unrelated thread and it seems like he is trying to bait me into violating it.

(He also brought up ArbCom, which did subject me to sanctions a little under a year ago, and I am also not allowed directly respond to those accusations without risking my response being interpreted as a violation.)

Could someone tell him to cut it out?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This... to put it shortly is a waste of time for both you and Snow. Could someone tell him to cut it out?, yes actually, you can. In a short single sentence that begins with "Snowrise" and ends with "cut it out." Simples. The sub-thread of comments on the PogingJuan thread are a pointless waste of time that have nothing to do with the original complaint or it's merits. Snow Rise, you made your point abundantly clear in your first comment on the thread; Hijiri, that last comment seems excessive and non-constructive. ... I don't think "we're probably better off without you" is in any way helpful ... for anyone. Hijiri can either take the comment to heart, or disregard it. Hijiri, I have to agree with Snow Rise on the general point (about your last comment being excessive) and I assume what they mean when they say you're(sic) interactions with other editors have been the subject of ANI threads on numerous occasions are those threads accessible in AN/I archives; 897, 886, 898, 919, 883 and 895. Generally hounding and battleground mentality, however, all of these are more than six months old. All in all, drop the sticks (both of you) and carry on with something more productive. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) yes actually, you can I considered that, but whether what he is doing is deliberate baiting or he doesn't realize what he's doing, his reply would be "cut what out?", and my replying to that would leave me open to getting blocked for IBAN-violation. I assume what they mean He could only conceivably mean what he says. ANI threads whose "subjects" were my interactions with other editors and which led to "sanctions" for me were all in relation to the IBAN in question and were all from 2014-2015. My defending myself against this kind of attack would violate the IBAN in question. drop the sticks (both of you) and carry on with something more productive That's what I meant by "I will hopefully not have to be the one to deal with it next time [...] I don't mind this thread being closed now"[77] "I'm not going to push it"[78] and "I have better things to do with my time"[79] -- nothing would make me happier than to just go back to building the encyclopedia, and I don't know why Snow Rise keeps trying to drag me back here and keeps bringing up old disputes from over a year ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You might notice that I've tried to leave this discussion already; I made it clear in my last post above that I felt I had failed to get through to him what was inappropriate in that comment to PongingJuan, and that I was leaving the conversation. Hijiri could have left it at that, but apparently my parting comments did not sit well with him, because he then launched this thread, predicated on an absurd accusation of bad faith behaviour. Surely you can see that if I tried to leave my comments where they were, and he has now responded by making an unspported accusation that I am out to get him, I don't have much choice but to respond and to demonstrate how strange and unsupportable that accusation is. With respect, Mr rnddude, I find myself often telling two parties to drop the stick, but I think you'll find that I did not seek this dispute in any way. I simply wanted Hijiri to not malign the general worth of a fellow editor. When it became clear after three posts that I was not making progress in getting him to understand why that was problematic behaviour, I exited that thread (in which I had no personal stake), only to have him show up immediately on my talk page with an ANI notice. Honestly, what would you do in my place? Snow ^{let's rap} 11:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I more or less understand. I'd be peeved as well if I was dragged to AN/I for little reason. However, I must disagree with this; You might notice that I've tried to leave this discussion already. There is a very simple way to leave any conversation on the internet, just don't respond (your comment was the last in PogingJuan's thread). It's difficult admittedly, I too struggle to just ignore an unfair or blatantly incorrect comment about myself. I feel if I do that I have legitimized the commentor and their comment. So I fully understand why you responded both here in this thread and there in that thread. There is another thing that I personally disagree with doing, but, isn't against any rules that I'm aware of; you're interactions with other editors have been the subject of ANI threads on numerous occasions, leading to more than a few warnings and sanctions, including at least one IBAN that I can recall. Bringing up old disputes, people's block logs, and other punishments enacted (such as IBAN's and TBAN's) isn't necessary, they've done their time let them live out the rest of it in peace. If you think somebody has said something uncivil, bring it up to them and criticize it by all means, but, don't bring up the old stuff along with it unless absolutely necessary - such as a pattern of abuse as part of an AN/I report. Nobody, least of all they, want to see it. It may be best to take complaints such as these to their talk page and, if possible, have a civil discussion over there. Hijiri I just noticed that you responded to me as well; conceivably you can do the same thing I recommended to Snow, just don't respond. I don't think anything needs to come of this thread. I again recommend that you both just turn away from each other, stop responding, and carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I too struggle to just ignore an unfair or blatantly incorrect comment about myself Imagine how I feel, being banned from correcting such unfair and blatantly inaccurate comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I too only noticed you responded to me after already responding to your initial comment. I agree. I would be very happy to simply leave this behind me. But if Snow Rise can jump in to an unrelated ANI thread, refuse to actually read the thread itself, and post a string of inaccurate and unfair comments about my IBAN from last year, I have no reason to believe he won't do it again. It's really, really difficult to let attacks like those (including the ones he has posted in this thread) stand, and I don't want him to do it again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Unrelated" to what Hijiri? You seem to be suggesting that we have some past personal history, which is just not true. My response to your comment above (as in past ANI threads) concerned the fact that you were needlessly personalizing a content dispute, to the point of denigrating another editor. I commented as a concerned member of this community, not as anyone who has any reason whatsoever to have an axe to grind against. I criticized you for your conduct, not for who you are. Second, you have seven times repeated this assertion that I commented in that thread without investigating it first, even though I have six times told you otherwise, starting with my very first post in that thread. Pretty ballsy to just keep lying flat out about my conduct like that, when anyone here can just scroll up to check the veracity of your claims. And you should have learned by now that they will--most people who volunteer their time in this space are the detail oriented sort.

And on that topic of ill-advised confidence that your misrepresentations will go unnoticed, let's look at another assertion you have repeated here several times now--namely that I "posted a string of comments on your IBAN". No. I mentioned it once. In passing, and only to point out that you have a pattern of blowing content disputes out of proportion. How you go from that to "I'm trying to bait you into violating the ban", I don't know. You made "repeatedly mentions my IBAN" assertion when you opened this thread, and you supported it with two diffs: [80][81]. Where's the reference to an IBAN in that first diff, Hijiri? Do you really want to continue down this road? Because that thread is still live on this page; fact checking is going to be super easy for the community here. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In perfect honesty, the reference to his checkered past was two-fold: 1) I wanted him, in light of his accusation that the other user was useless to this project, to remember that he's been given a lot of WP:ROPE over recent years. And 2) I genuinely thought I might help him identify a pattern of behaviour that he still has not broken (making content disputes far more personal than they need to be, to the point that the community. That's not in any sense a past issue for him; his behaviour in both threads here is fairly demonstrative of that. I didn't say that to him in as many words, but I was genuinely giving him my honest advice, for his own benefit more than anyone's, though I know he will never consider believing that.

Personally I view this thread as a massive abuse of process and part of a pattern of frivolous filings in this forum that would be well served by a WP:BOOMERANG. But I'm not in a position to make that case, neither time-wise nor with regard to the fact that he has tried to frame me as someone out to get him for....reasons? Even taking myself and my own vexation out of the analysis, some response is called for here: part of the pattern that ArbCom observed when they censured Hijiri was that he likes to threaten to use process to intimidate others. Here's a comment that ArbCom highlighted in their discussion of his problematic behaviour:

"But don't worry -- I won't post any more GA reassessments for the foreseeable future (even though I have half a dozen already drafted off-wiki) as long as you cease your campaign to get me removed from the project. Immediately." [82]

And here he is yesterday: "...as long as PogingJuan doesn't get in my way [emphasis added] I don't see any need to pursue any of the above further." [83]

These are clearly live issues for this editor. He views other editors who he gets in disputes with as obstacles to be removed from his path, and he's more than willing to abuse process as an ends to a means; he broadcasts when he is about to do it in order to try to intimidate other editors away from his territory. You say that referencing past problem behaviour should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. I happen to agree with that perspective--but I can't see how it could possibly not be relevant in light of Hijiri's behaviour in both this and the above thread. Note that Hijiri has been blocked twice for battleground/disruptive behaviour since April--well after the ArbCom ruling for which he was censured for this kind of behaviour. I'm sincerely vexed that he has filed an ANI against me without any evidence of his seriously bizarre assertion, but perhaps it can serve some benefit if it brings his continued reliance on hostility and threats under community scrutiny. I'm not the person to make that case under the circumstances, but I hope someone will seize the initiative. In my opinion, biased as it may be under the circumstances, we are past the point where we can turn a blind eye to this behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, SR, please be more brief. I don't have the energy to read through all the above. I'll just respond to the first part: "unrelated" means unrelated to PogingJuan's disruption related the Duterte article. Your comments in the thread showed you were not interested in helping to resolve that problem (your consistent misspelling of "PongingJuan"'s name indicates that you didn't read through the thread carefully), and the only substance in your posts was related to my interactions with you from over a year ago. I would love to correct all the historical revisionism you posted in both that thread and this one, but per the terms of my IBAN I am not allowed, and you are clearly aware of this. This means that the only motivation you could have for constantly dredging it up would be to aggravate me. Why else would you have written I'm familiar enough with your approach to the multiple running feuds? I asked you for clarification of what "multiple running feuds" you were referring to, and you dodged the question. I don't have multiple running feuds, there is only one user I've posted about on ANI more than once in 2016, and you were not involved in either of those threads. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I am supposed to be unrelated to the dispute in that sense, if that is in fact what you really intended to suggest. The entire reason this forum exists is to provide the influence of uninvolved parties. It would be useless if only parties to the dispute could comment on it. And why do you insist on continuing to misrepresent my conduct by implying that the bulk (or even a significant portion) of my comments to you were based on your past behaviour. My comments were very clearly focused, from the very start, on your recent behaviour vis-a-vis insulting Poging in the above thread. I don't understand why you keep digging yourself deeper on that, when literally any editor can simply scroll up and see how that discussion actually progressed, and see that I mentioned the IBAN once, in passing, no matter how many time you repeat false claims (and use false diffs to support them). Are you just playing a numbers game, hoping enough people will not check the veracity of your assertions? I'm telling you, that's a losing strategy here under normal circumstances--and in this instance, they aren't even going to need to go to the archive to check your claims against reality. Trying to muddy the waters is a losing strategy here; you're exposed down to your ankles. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You are not what I was referring to when I said "unrelated"; your comments were unrelated to the problem at hand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The entire crux of my comments on that thread was that you told PogingJuan, in the thread above, that "the project is probably better off without you". How is that in any way unrelated to that thread. The comment I was criticizing was within that thread and arose from your engagement with Poging within that thread. It was only in the fourth post, after a great deal of WP:IDHT that I mentioned your extensive block history and issues brought to ANI/ArbCom, and only then because I was trying to emphasize to you that you exhibit a consistent pattern of behaviour with regard to incivility that you need to break from, before the community loses patience with you. I also then told that you could take or lave that advice as you chose and that I was done trying to reach you on this issue. So you knew I was done in that thread, which makes opening this thread clearly retaliatory/an effort to voice your displeasure at being criticized. Your claim that you opened this thread to stop me from harassing you will hold absolutely zero water for anyone who reads that thread. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless I misread him here, Hijiri is suggesting that for some reason, I picked an editor I have never had a personal dispute with and then tried to bait him into discussing his IBAN, for the sheer joy of seeing him banned. (!?!) If any editor who reads the above thread to which Hijiri is alluding to, they'll see that all that occurred was that I called out Hijiri for behaving in a nonconstructive and borderline incivil fashion towards another editor. Hijiri then proceeded to engage in a series of WP:IDHT responses. He says (in a bold-faced lie) that I admitted to not looking into the matter, but I actually assured him in each and every post that I had reviewed the matter before commenting (this too can be easily confirmed above), and that I agreed with some of what he said, but I still found one comment he had made to be needlessly caustic and too close to a personal attack. I tried to explain to him that, even if dealing with a problem editor, it didn't excuse him to make blanket accusations about their general worth as an editor and that he should keep his comments focused upon specific issues, and to avoid needlessly personalizing the process.

In my last post (which I made clear would be last comment on the matter, which in my opinion makes this thread feel like a vindictive strike in order to get the last word), I did make reference to the fact that Hijiri ends up here at ANI with VERY problematic frequency-- this as part of an attempt to get him to consider the impact of his behaviour and an extensive history of responding poorly to what the community has tried to tell him about his tendency to make content disputes personal and to then consume countless volunteer hours in trying to separate him from the people who won't (and look for this quote above for the full context) "stay out of his way". But Hijiri, rather than taking my advice (which admittedly were quite critical, but not delivered for personal reasons) at face value, has decided has decided to believe (or at least has chosen to state) that I am trying to bait him into violating his IBAN. I'll trust in the judgment of my fellow editors here to judge just how rational that suggestion is, while noting that Hijiri has opened other threads here in the past with such claims, none of which, to my memory, has ever resulted in a sanction for another editor: [84].

In no way do I have any interest in getting Hijiri to talk about his IBAN. I never suggested that he should and mentioned the ban only in passing ONCE (not repeatedly as Hijiri says, while citing diffs that do not support his claim) in discussing his general pattern of disruption. Nor could he be banned for talking about it here at ANI, anyway. The simple fact of what occurred here is that I asked Hijiri to reflect on his behaviour and pointed out some facts about the amount of community energy and good will that he has chewed through here in the last few years. He says my comments are unfounded and implies I am coming after him for...well, I'm not sure why? But he seems to think my criticism was personal, so here's what little I know of Hijiri that I can offer by way of explaining why I felt there was a need to get him to scale back the inflammatory comments above:

• A couple of years ago, I was summoned by a random RfC bot to an intense content dispute between Hijiri and a couple of other editors working in the vein of Japanese culture. This is the same topic area ArbCom finally banned Hijiri from contributing to, some 10 months back, after several years of extended disruption in that topic area, particularly in the vein of "personal attacks and threatening behaviour". I actually agreed with Hijiri on the content issue on that first encounter and supported his position, but this is where I first noticed his tendency to refuse to AGF and to needlessly inflame and personalize disputes.
• In the months that followed, Hijiri began to show up repeatedly at ANI, either as the subject of threads or as the one starting them, usually surrounding topics of Japanese culture and history and usually involving a perennial dispute with user Catflap08, and a small cadre of other editors who had been pulled into the dispute on either side of Japanese/Korean nationalist issues--these parties were largely the same that ultimately ended up having their behaviour reviewed in the ArbCom case. I want to make clear that at no point was I a party to any of these disputes and would have no cause for personal misgivings; I simply commented as a concerned community member at a few of the AN/ANI threads examining the behaviour of Hijiri and Catflap. At one point an IBAN was proposed between the two, which I recall opposing, as I felt it would only see the two brought back to this thread again and again, since they both refused to leave the same articles and I was certain the IBAN would be gamed.
• Sure enough, several more ANI threads followed, some started by Hijiri accusing Catflap of violating the IBAN, others vice-versa. Catflap and some of the other personalities involved were hardly blameless in those disputes, but I was left with a memory of Hijiri being particularly prone to refusing to AGF and making some truly bizarre accusations about what he thought the goals of his opposition were.
• The feud never crossed my path again for about a year, but apparently it continued, because ultimately ArbCom stepped and sanctioned many of the disputants on both sides with broad topic bans, including Hijiri and Catflap.

And that is the sum total of my experience with Hijiri, until I saw him yesterday telling another editor that the project is "probably better off without him", after said user attempted to make some conciliatory gestures. At no point have I ever been in a content or personal dispute with Hijiri before, so this theory that "I'm trying to lure him into violating his IBAN from two years ago so I can then get him banned, mwahahahaha! *moustache twirl*" is either a demonstration of extreme paranoia or just an effort to respond to criticism through a frivlous use of this forum. There's not really a third possibility in this instance, as I see it, unfortunately. I tried to tell Hijiri something he doesn't want to hear: at some point, when A) your block log looks like this, with blocks for disruptive editing, abusing multiple accounts, personal attacks and harassment, IBAN violations, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and general incivility, B) you have been here for just a couple of years, but have managed to average being the subject of an ANI thread every few months, and C) even ArbCom has censured you for hostile and threatening behaviour, one just might consider that they could show some more restraint in how they respond to conflict and criticism on this project.

I have been on this project for considerably longer than Hijiri and I have never been blocked, nor so much as received an administrative warning, ever, despite intensive involvement in numerous areas which often invite conflict here. I have never been the subject of an ANI inquiry, until this blatantly retaliatory thread. I consider WP:Civility and WP:AGF our most important policies, and make my comments here with that consideration foremost in mind. So I'm quite happy, knowing the diligence and temperament of my fellow volunteers in this space, in having my conduct (both in the above thread and generally) scrutinized by the community and held up against Hijiri's bizarre implication that I am trying to trick him into violating his ban, for which he has provided no support beyond wild, AGF-violating speculation. I think my conduct in the above thread, and Hijiri's, both speak for themselves.

I'll not be responding to Hijiri's assertions or comments any further here, but if any other party has any questions about this matter or any of the observations I've made above, feel free to ask. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to read any more of your 1,000+ word comments, but if by I'll not be responding to Hijiri's assertions or comments any further here you mean you will stop harassing me, then I am happy. We are done here. Good bye. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop trying to rewrite history. I don't know if you accurately remember what happened and are lying, or you are just misremembering because it was all more than a year ago, but I am unable to correct you on the details here, and you should refrain from trying to bait me into trying to correct you. Good bye, and happy editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

IBan proposal

While myself and Hijiri have clashed on several instances in the past between this ANI thread and the one lower on the page, I think there two editors need to just be kept away from one another. Nothing productive comes out of their interaction so I am recommending a flat two way interaction ban. Go improve the wiki instead of worrying about the other. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I have done nothing wrong here, and another restriction that serves no purpose but to be gamed by people who want to get under my skin would make the current problem worse, not better. Also, @Tivanir2:, who on earth are you? You say you have "clashed with me [in] this ANI thread and the one lower on the page", but I have no recollection of ever interacting with you before, the above is your first post on ANI in almost two months, and your first edit in over two weeks. What are you talking about? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not taking a position, but perhaps this will help you recollect your previous interactions with Tivanir2. General Ization ^Talk 22:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

And I must say that, from the timelines that tool supplies, I can find no interaction at all, with your edits and that editor's edits separated in every case (except here) by a number of years. General Ization ^Talk 22:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. Tivanir2 is either a legitimate undeclared alternate account of Mr rnddude, or a sockpuppet of a site-banned user who pops up occasionally to undermine my edits and seek sanctions against me or relief for those he perceives as my "enemies". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to re-iterate what I said on my user talk page; Tivanir2 is not an alternate account of mine, nor do I have any alternate accounts. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The thought didn't occur to me until much later, but I was tempted to add "or some random enemy of Mr rnddude trying to frame him for sockpuppetry". Note that Tivandir2 claims to have interacted with me in this thread and refers to Snow Rise in the third person (and with the final imperative statement the second person), and up until General Ization's above comments the only one third party to comment was Mr rnddude. This means that they are indirectly claiming to be Mr rnddude, and they are directly claiming to be somebody's sockpuppet, since I have never interacted with either Tivandir or Tivandir2 before. Either way, this subthread is essentially invalidated -- nothing proposed by a sockpuppet or someone trying to impersonate another Wikipedian is ever going to pass. The main thread was already TLDR after Snow Rise's first comment, so no one was likely to reply anyway, the proposal is bogus because it would only make the problem worse, and the subthread itself has already been irredeemably overshadowed by the sockpuppetry question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is absolutely no reason to implement an IBAN against Hiriji or Snow Rise at this time. IBAN's have a long history of causing more problems then they solve, this can be solved far more easily than through some punitive IBAN. Highly recommend an admin stop by and close this sub-thread, if not the whole thread, and just move on. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolute oppose and an appeal to the community to seriously look at what is unfolding here

I have not violated any policy, nor engaged in any activity which constitutes disruption under this community's standards. If anyone claims to have so much as a single diff demonstrating otherwise, I'd like to see it. Nor do I have ANY extended history of conflict with Hijiri to suggest I must be "kept separate" from anyone; the sum total of my interaction here was to call him out for what I felt was incivil behaviour in a thread above, and he chose to retaliate by opening this thread against me, even though I had already surmised my comments in that thread and had given up on further efforts to get him to reflect on what I viewed as a hostile comment. And now, an IBAN is being proposed against me? On the basis that, I engaged with Hijiri over the course two days and four posts at ANI thread as a concerned member of the community where I was not even a party to the original dispute!? This circus is getting out of control fast, as it almost always does when Hijiri pulls another editor into a separate ANI thread, in order to try to stop their criticism of him in another ANI thread. I am simply not going going to get caught in the crossfire between Hijiri and one his foes. I seriously need an admin to shut this absurdity down before it proceeds any farther. Hijiri has provided ZERO evidence to support the paranoid accusation he opened this thread with, and Tivanir, if he is the party that Hijiri imagines him to be or not, clearly has never read WP:IBAN and has no clue the extraordinary circumstances in which it is applied. I am not going to be added to Hijir's list of IBANs simply because I commented on one ANI thread, and others here ought to be taken by alarm at how this process is proceeding, because if this can happen to me without the community restraining it, it can happen to anyone who asks a disruptive editor to step back from incivil comments.

My name is now being dragged straight through the dirt here, after years of conscientious devotion to our community values of collaboration, collegiality and civility. I have never once been blocked on this project, NEVER been accused of making WP:Personal attack or engaging in incivil behaviour, never edit warred, never been cautioned by an admin for ANY form of disruptive behaviour. And now, because Hijiri (an editor who has ten blocks in less than three years, has been sanctioned by ArbCom for abusing process in exactly the way he is doing here, and has treated this forum as his playground for harassment) has decided to launch his umpteenth retaliatory ANI, this time against me because I dared to question his telling another editor they were useless to the project, I am suddenly being floated for an IBAN? With a user I have barely interacted with? Ludicrous. Is no one going to step in here and bring some sanity to this situation? All I need here is for someone to spend five minutes looking at the thread above, that is even archived yet, and to see that the accusation made against me here (that I'm trying to get Hijiri to talk about his IBAN as part of some convoluted plan to get him in trouble) is not only baseless, but in fact a nonsensical flight into paranoid fantasy. Hijiri should receive a WP:BOOMERANG for impugning me without any kind of evidence for his assertion and for the general disruption that these repeated frivolous threads cause in this forum on a semi-regular basis. As to Tivanir2, I have not had a chance to look at the SPI to know if there is anything to Hijiri's suspicions, but there's certainly something fishy with this spurious proposal.

PLEASE, PLEASE, I am begging the community of editors here to look into this matter before it spirals farther out of control and the waters get further muddied. The veracity of Hijiri's claims about my conduct can be checked in just a couple of minutes of reading of the thread above, as can the rationality of the motive he ascribes to me. Please, I know the workload on this forum is heavy, but my reputation on this project is suddenly under assault because I dared to call out some incivility. All I'm asking is that a few admins/contributors look at the accusation being made, look at the discussion from which Hijiri's accusations arise, look at his diffs (which do not include the content he claims they do) and give their honest assessment. Please don't leave me twisting in the wind to deal with this problem editor's accusations alone and to get caught in the crossfire between him and one of his numerous Wiki foes. I've done nothing that I feel the average good-faith editor at ANI would not have done in my place. Please look at the situation and tell me if I am wrong. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Snow Rise, calm down. Nobody is going to implement a two-way IBAN between you and Hijiri 88 for this - at least not if there are no further walls of disruptive text. Slow down, and preferably restrain yourself from posting massive walls of text from here on out. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude has explained the situation well, but I will add that interaction bans are invited when participants continue to poke each other merely because they can. It's fine to post one's thoughts about another editor (particularly if brief!), but at some point repeating those thoughts becomes a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, Johnuniq--I don't disagree, at all. But consider the manner in which this situation has played out and then ask yourself if my reaction is really any different from what yours would be in my place, or what you'd expect from the average, reasonable and rationale community member:

My initial comments were relatively brief in the above thread--I simply pointed out to Hijiri that his comments directed towards another editor were excessive and bordered on intimidation. And after going through a brief back-and-forth with him as he went into WP:IDHT mode, I finally gave up and told him explicitly that I was done trying to get him to understand the point I was trying to stress, and departed that thread, stating outright that I was not going to engage further. He then, within moments, opened up this thread in a retaliatory fashion and predicated it on a notion that is either a paranoid delusion or an attempt to obfuscate issues (either way, it's a WP:Personal attack, as he failed to provide evidence to support this extreme accusation; "serious accusations require serious evidence"). Faced with this manner of attack upon my conduct on this project, without accurate diffs, I think it absolutely appropriate and acceptable for me to point out that this user has been censured by ArbCom for exactly these types of threats/abuses of process, that he has a massive block log for harassment, disruption and battleground mentality, and that he has a history of leveraging ANI threads to pursue personal grudges (none of which have ever resolved with the community substantiating his claims), exactly as he did here. I'm just the latest person to raise his ire enough to be targeted in this fashion. That's all salient information that puts his bizarre accusations in context.

Honestly, would you not present all of that information yourself if you were in my place? Having become the subject of a frivolous ANI thread started by an editor with that record simply because you called him out for bullying another editor? Well, anyway, that's the extent of what I'll say here regarding by verbosity above. I was accused of conduct which did not occur and for a supposed motivation that makes no sense. So I defended myself as best I could until others commented here. But I'm happy to disengage from this point forward. I feel comfortable putting my faith in the community members here to see this matter to its conclusion, now that there is some degree of involvement beyond Hijiri and myself. Thank you to the both of you for stepping in when you did, regardless of whether you comment further. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please close this utter nonsense before Hijiri gets hit with a BOOMERANG

There is no evidence that SnowRise did anything wrong. There is no stricture on commenting on an ANI thread (unless the commenter has an IBan with the filer or subject of the ANI). There is no stricture on referring to any party's longterm pattern of interaction with other editors. There is considerable evidence that Hijiri has a longterm habit of reacting to and disparaging other editors he disagrees with rather than keeping things on the level of content/edits only (and he has been sanctioned for this behavior). There is no stricture on referring to this when analyzing similar circumstances. Indeed the filing of this thread seems to prove the point. Could someone please close this thread before we have several more unnecessary back-and-forths and a consequent boomerang? Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this thread should be closed, but I don't see why a boomerang would be heading my way. Snow Rise did post a series of remarks about an IBAN that hadn't come up on-wiki for nine months, in a thread about an entirely unrelated issue, and I presented the diffs of him doing so. I asked him several times to stop, and he kept going. Then when I requested someone else tell him to stop (and they did!) he still kept going. I don't think it's necessary to keep it up, though -- he seems willing to drop the stick, so I too will drop it. Move to close. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Oneshotofwhiskey and Dinesh D'Souza

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

---

This is a modified version of an earlier Request for Arbitration, which was declined: User:Oneshotofwhiskey openly boasts that he is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. In his own words, he is an activist intending to expose "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)"; this mentality has unsurprisingly caused him to challenge basic tenets of WP:BLP. For example, Oneshotofwhiskey replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot, and accused D'Souza of promoting "conspiracy theory" in the lead. Discussion on the talk page has yielded no consensus in favor of labeling D'Souza a "convicted felon" or "conspiracy theorist"—in fact, despite Oneshotofwhiskey's suggestions to the contrary, he is essentially alone in advocating those changes. (An RfC has since been opened on the "conspiracy theorist" question; the results are mixed but leaning against inclusion.) Nor am I alone in challenging Oneshotofwhiskey's POV-pushing language. Although he has since dropped the mugshot angle, Oneshotofwhiskey has continued to attack Dinesh D'Souza with a tenacity and complete disregard for sources or standards that is really quite shocking. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Oneshotofwhiskey has mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz eight times now ([85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]), claiming it is "WP:SYNTH" to include Dershowitz's attributed opinion because "he was not involved in this trial of D'Souza" (needless to say, that is not a proper application of the policy), and adding "Dershowitz himself is a shoddy source considering his own actions in helping murderer O.J. Simpson get away with his crimes." Oneshotofwhiskey continues to rant about how D'Souza is "a pathological liar, delusional, mentally-unstable, (and) an adulterer", and frequently makes claims that fail verification, as when he attributed the following text to this Slate article: "In 2012, D'Souza released 2016: Obama's America, a conservative political documentary film based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage. Both offer his personal partisan opinions and anecdotal observations." Since Oneshotofwhiskey believes WP:BRD does not apply to his changes, I feel I have no choice but to seek your assistance. While the article is currently locked down, there is every reason to assume Oneshotofwhiskey will resume his behavior when the protection expires. Based on the evidence above, I believe admins should seriously consider imposing a topic ban.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the full protection was lifted a couple of hours ago. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

: This diff (replacing profile picture with mugshot), by itself, merits a block or topic ban. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC) (see below)

Yes, given these diffs, I think it's fairly clear this user can't or won't be able to contribute to articles about D'Souza in a fair-minded fashion, and I would support a topic ban. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I do see a fair bit of POV in the way Oneshotofwhiskey approaches this topic, but I'd like to also offer a word of caution to TheTimesAreAChanging about how they represent another editor's perspectives. You've said "User:Oneshotofwhiskey openly boasts that he is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. In his own words, he is an activist intending to expose 'the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)'". And yet, looking the diffs you've presented, nowhere does he make such a "boast", nor does he identify as an "activist", nor does the context of the partial quote you have utilized match with the framing statement you've coupled it to.

In fact, his edit summaries make it clear that he thinks he is following an editorial path that is more neutral than the article status quo. That's debatable, to say the least, but your effort to put words in his mouth and make it look as if he has openly admitted to derailing process in order to serve NOTHERE purposes is itself very problematic. Your case is already quite strong; you don't need to distort the record to make his activity on those pages look potentially disruptive; in fact, utilizing those techniques as you have undermines your argument and could potentially give wind to his sails by making his WP:OWN-based arguments against you seem more valid than they otherwise would. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough—perhaps I shouldn't have employed those rhetorical flourishes—but just because no-one would literally admit to being WP:NOTHERE doesn't mean the direct quotes I supplied fail to offer a revealing glimpse into Oneshotofwhiskey's motivation and state of mind. The OWN argument would be more credible if I were a major contributor to Dinesh D'Souza, but I never edited the article prior to this dispute. (In fact, I added it to my Watchlist fairly recently, after watching last summer's D'Souza-Cenk Uygur Politicon debate.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed the previous arbtritration was settled with the admin finding that both of us need to find common ground. He is putting words into my mouth as my tough talk on the page is just that, my personal political opinion. However my edits strive to maintain neutrality. The accusing editor is attempting a double jeapordy here, hoping to game the system. He continues to make personal attacks. He also continues to put words in my mouth, then when called out on it, pretends they are flourishes. This disruptive editor betrays his own agenda, with smug attacks and efforts to include content that clearly violates WP:DUE and WP:OR. We have a aubject who is a convicted felon who openly admits wrong doing in court but this editor wishes to include conspiracy theories in the article claiming this felon was jailed by Obama as a political prisoner by the government! It is not that I'm against including this content since the felon D'Souza in question now claims he was a political prisoner. But the editor wishes to go one step further and introduce into the article what he thinks is "strong evidence" that Obama conspired to politically prison this man when the truth is his "evidence" is violated WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. For my part, since the last arbitration I have limited my thoughts and arguing to the talk page in accordance with the last ruling by the admin in the previous ANI. I should not re-tried for that past decision simply because some people didn't like the outcome. We both should be judged for our behavior since then since that editor was sternly warned to stop with personal attacks and disruptive tactics, and here he is blantantly ignoring that imposed boundary. He was asked to work it out with the rest of us on the talk page, yet he is here disregarding that. It's on you guys if you let him manipulate you into playing that game. Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. As for the rest of the regurgitated allegations by TheTimesAreAChanging: I'm not pretending to have never made mistakes with previous edits. When called out on anything that comes to close to a POV or political edit, I have almost ALWAYS backed down in the spirit of compromise. We all are biases, sure. However, I'm careful to respect that, and one only needs to examine my edits closely to see that I will compromise. The mugshot thing, for instance, is a case in point: this is misleading and gleefully exploited by this editor. When I included it, it was ONLY because D'Souza identifies himself as a political prisoner. Unlike most political commentators who would be ashamed of his jail time, D'Souza is a celebrity conservative pundit who wears his convicted status as a badge of pride. He doesn't simply brag about it- he has woven it obsessively into his personal narrative and brand, presenting himself as a political outlaw in the spirit of Robin Hood taking on Obama as his Sheriff of Nottingham. Ridiculous as this sounds, simply look at his latest partisan 'documentary' about Hillary where he spends a significant portion of his movie dramatizing his jail time as the tale of an innocent man targeted by Obama in a political vendetta. He's the star of his own tale of political persecution, not unlike Donald Trump who claims the world is conspiring against him to rig the election and frame him for sex crimes. I can list citations if you think I'm exaggerating. And it was in that vein that I innocently introduced a cropped mugshot since D'Souza himself proudly identifies with that image. However, immediately after it became clear that others editors disapproved of this, I quickly backed down. There is even a section of our talk page dedicated to this very subject for debate! [[93]] Again, as ridiculous as this sounds, we are talking about radical political figures like Donald Trump and D'Souza, who are part of an emotional movement where this kind of drama is the norm. If that makes me sound 'partisan' to suggest this, then this is a serious problem for wikipedia since our duty to WP:CITE and WP:DUE forbid us from offering false equivalence to radical figures like D'Souza and Trump who both claim the US democratic election is rigged and when charged with serious crimes claim (without evidence) to be framed by the government. It's damned if we do and damned if we don't. I'm not a robot so, yes, my emotion will spill out on the talk pages. But, unlike the disruptive editor who brought these charges against me, I do my best to avoid personal attacks and I make sure above ALL ELSE to keep my edits themselves neutral. Hopefully my edits will be judged, not my feelings in the talk page (where, I would hope, it is okay for us to be honest about our personal political feelings and leanings). For example: if you examine my edits, I am quick to give credit to D'Souza's amazing success as a filmmaker, who himself is like a conservative Michael Moore and deserves credit for his movies making the kind of money it has in a crowded market place. So, even if not perfect, I do my best to maintain neutrality, respect consensus, and respect guidelines.

To add to SPECIFICO's [[94]] concerns...It should be obvious that TheTimesAreAChanging is actually guilty of page ownership violations by this point. If you look at my edits and another by an editor named SPECIFICO [[95]] that we have to basically go through TheTimesAreAChanging. In fact, most and all changes in the article were reversed by him, with the pretention that he has admin like power to decide what is right or wrong. He then belittles this other edit in his subject headings, calling him 'my pal' or a 'robot' and other digs against that editor.

TheTimesAreAChanging claims to be an impartial editor trying to protect a page, yet I would like you to examine the subject in this edit [[96]]. In that recent edit, he not only attacks that editor but then blantantly boasts of his right to make a personal attack, confessing to it and rationalizing it!Again, examine this edit TheTimesAreAChanging where he attacks SPECIFICO [[97]] in the subject heading. So, are all of these just "flourishes", as the editor notes? If an editor comes here to make not one but TWO ANIs like this, then they had better be setting a good example themselves. If you examine the subject heading in that edit I listed, TheTimesAreAChanging After being warned by SPECIFICO that "WP:NPA you may make civil behavioral comments on editor talk pages and you may file behavioral complaints on AE or ANI." TheTimesAreAChanginggoes on the attack, saying Your pal called me "hot-headed," "ridiculous," and "partisan"--and much worse elsewhere--yet you redacted only my warning that arbitration is now needed? SPECIFICO, how's this for a personal attack: You're a joke! For the record, I am NOT friends with SPECIFICO. This is just a smug personal attack at least or, at most, a false accusation of meatpuppetry that doesn't belong here at all. This is also the same editor who is still under close watch from admins in the prior ANI for confessing to violating the 3RR rule. Again, he can't have it both ways. Sorry, but my soap box is higher than his horse.

For him to claim he has a passing interest in the article when he is attacking SPECIFICO, me, and other editors with these kind of attacks and reverts is the definition of WP:OWN violations. Does that sound like an editor who has a passing interest in an article? I think not. If anyone is deserving of a topic ban, it is an editor who games the system this way who himself comes to these proceeding with dirty hands. This is all I care to say about this subject. Forgive the length of it BUT this is the kind of drama some of us have to deal with at the hands of this cunning disruptive editor. Thank you for your time.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, your explanation of that mugshot thing is not doing a whole lot to dispel my concerns about your ability to approach this topic in a neutral and non-disruptive manner. Even were we to give face value to your assertion that you were just trying to make the article consistent with D'Souza's own self-image, that would still be an inherently non-encyclopedic approach to the topic and a deeply problematic approach to editing in general. But let's be honest here, I don't believe for a second that your action was motivated by an interest to show fidelity to D'Souza's narrative--not when we consider your clear perspective voiced on the talk page and the nature of your edits surrounding the man's status as a felon--and I don't think anyone else is going to buy that story either.

You have conceded, both on the talk page and here, that changing the infobox image as you did was a bad idea, which is a good start. But both there and here, you continue to try to frame that as an "innocent mistake" that is not in any way connected to any biases you may have on the topic. That strains our capacity to take your comments at face value and believe that you've genuinely taken criticism on board and are capable of contributing in this area without considerable disruption, born of an inherently POV approach to the topic. Again, I can't speak for everyone, but I'd be a lot more inclined to believe you understood criticism of your previous behaviour if you fully owned up to just how inappropriate and non-neutral it was, rather than attempting these bizarre rationalizations. Wikipedia does not have a principle of double jeopardy, as you phrase it, and WP:Sanctions are never handed out for punitive purposes, but solely as preventative measures; therefore, if you show signs of not having recognized and addressed the underlying mindset which led to your previous disruptive behaviour, you can bet the community will act accordingly--and the fact that you were previously warned for this behaviour will not be a procedural protection for you, but rather a factor taken as evidence that you are not hearing the concerns of your fellow editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Editors should be aware that OP routinely misrepresents facts and cites diffs that do not support his claims. His edit comments are full of personal aspersions and hostile side rants. And he has edit warred on American Politics post 1932 articles after having received the warning template. Speedy close or boomerang is in order here. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

To add some TL;DR to all of this: On 16 October 2016, an AN3 was filed by TheTimesAreAChanging against Oneshotofwhiskey for edit warring on Dinesh D'Souza. He also filed an ArbCom request (which was ultimately declined). On October 18, I added a ruling on the AN3 warning both parties to stop edit warring, made them both aware that the article was under discretionary sanctions, and put them both on a final warning basis regarding edit warring on the article. They were both told to resolve their depute on the article's talk page and to keep their discussion towards content and not toward one another. I added further comments in the report here, as well as explained my rationale for the closure of the report on my talk page here when questioned about it. I haven't dug into any details yet, but I figured that I'd give an initial response and add links and a summary to help those that just want the TL;DR. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I for one will be very interested in hearing your perspective on the most recent bout of accusations and counter-accusations between these two (at your convenience, of course), in light of the fact that you observed the previous behaviour and put them on warning. There seems to be a healthy dose of rationalization for the purpose of excusing disruptive behaviour from both sides, frankly and at present I'm a hair's-breadth from endorsing a topic ban for one, if not both--and I don't think I'm the only one. But I'd like your perspective before that. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This will take a little time, but yes I do plan on adding my perspective once I've read through everything. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As Snow Rise says, Oneshotofwhiskey's POV-pushing and BLP violations are of an exceptionally grave character: I've seen few parallels in six years of editing Wikipedia. No-one should be persuaded by SPECIFICO's and Oneshotofwhiskey's continued attempts to whitewash what was done—in fact, they are only making themselves look ridiculous by pretending that edits like the mugshot were done in "good faith," untainted by Oneshotofwhiskey's avowed POV. And my own conduct is irrelevant: Even if I were guilty of a minuscule fraction of Oneshotofwhiskey's offenses, bad behavior doesn't justify other bad behavior.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And he's still doing it! Look at Oneshotofwhiskey's latest personal attack on User:The Four Deuces, whom he accuses of "emotional reasoning" simply for disagreeing with him. Fact is—to the extent he can be categorized—TFD is a fairly liberal editor and surely has no great love for D'Souza; more to the point, TFD's thoughtful analysis is widely respected and has helped resolve many a talk page dispute. (Even SPECIFICO agrees!) Does Oneshotofwhiskey truly seem to have reformed at all, when he can't stop making comments like "Sorry, but thankfully the final word on D'Souza isn't wikipedia if you guys succeed in turning this back into a spin page" (as if Wikipedia is here to provide the "final word" on anything at all)?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Times says "An exceptionally grave character??" Really? For some reason Times accuses me of being in cahoots with Oneshot. He says I tried to whitewash "what was done" -- actually I haven't commented on anything that was done by Whiskey, so Times' accusation that I'm here to whitewash something is just more of his battleground fog. I have never commented on the "mugshot" except one time when Times falsely stated that it had been I who inserted it in the article -- "wrong" -- and it's too bad he repeats that misstatement after it was pointed out to him (twice). WP may not have a protection against "double jeopardy" but cut and pasting a load of undocumented complaints and personal attacks on one board after another is forum-shopping, and taken together with the false aspersions, personal attacks, stalking, and other tendentious and disruptive behavior the whole package suggests that Times could use a time out to see whether he can return in a calmer and more constructive mode of collaboration. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the more Times writes in this thread, the easier it is to see his battleground tactics. Above he says that "even" I agree with Times that TFD has "helped resolve many a talk page dispute" and then posts a link that shows nothing of the sort. It only shows me thanking TFD for replying to a request relating to his opinion on that one thread and calling his response "thoughtful" -- this tactic of either deliberate or irrational obfuscation is disruptive and needs a time out for Times to reflect and reform his behavior. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

EC: I never claimed SPECIFICO added the mugshot; moreover, I did not "repeat that misstatement" (???) above. I do not know why SPECIFICO continues to make such assertions; I have previously corrected him.

"I haven't commented on anything that was done by Whiskey." Really? What about, e.g., "I have seen Oneshotofwhiskey less frequently. I find that ID to be constructive and usually policy-based in its edits and comments. Oneshot will sometimes take the bait when taunted by an aggressive editor such as TimesAreChanging and would probably do better to walk away rather than engage, but I see no reason for any disciplinary action."

With regard to the claim of "forum shopping", three editors at AN3 advised me that my complaint "seems better suited to ANI" or recommended I "divert to ANI."

With regard to SPECIFICO's comment at 3:01, consider the following: SPECIFICO sees "no reason for any disciplinary action" against Oneshotofwhiskey, despite all of the evidence presented above. At the same time SPECIFICO thinks I need "a time out" because someone could possibly misinterpret my comment at 2:52 as suggesting that he agrees with the community view that TFD has resolved many heated disputes (for examples of this, just check out the barnstar's on TFD's user page), when in fact SPECIFICO merely endorsed my own description of TFD's analysis as "thoughtful." (This despite the fact that I provided a link to SPECIFICO's exact words in my aside.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, let's slow things down a bit here--I'd rather my observations not be characterized by a loaded value assessment (like "grave") which I did not myself employ. What I said was that OSOW's efforts to address his previous actions needed perhaps a bit more honesty and self-awareness and a bit less rationalization. Nowhere did I imply that I thought his behaviour was so beyond that pall that he was unable of adressing it to the satisfaction of myself and the other community members commenting here--in fact, I consciously left that question open, pending his response, Oshwah's perspective (which I hope he will not feel rushed to give), and any other context that might be forthcoming from involved parties.

Honestly, neither of you seems capable of describing the other's conduct without hyperbole, and each additional comment either of you makes seems to march you both a little closer to the nuclear option of just topic banning both of you. Seriously, take it down a notch, guys--at a certain point the histrionics are going to become so pronounced that it won't matter who is acting more appropriately with regard to the content, because your contest of wills will in itself be disruptive enough that the community will have no choice but to remove you both from the topic area. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything "hyperbolic" about my description. Replacing the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot and ranting about "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)" are, in fact, very serious BLP violations; not a single edit of mine is even remotely comparable. I'm certainly not going to apologize for any "disruption" caused by pointing that out.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you are frequently resorting to what you characterized as "rhetorical flourishes" above; that is, a pattern of presenting the mindsets and perspectives of other editors (both those you are in conflict with and those you believe are supporting you) in terms which make some considerable leaps from what was explicitly said. I'm AGFing and assuming that you are doing this because of confirmation bias (i.e., you are letting yourself see what you want to see), and not because you are trying to deliberately misrepresent anyone or over-exaggerate their perspectives, but I'm afraid it is a problem.

Another issue is that, while it is certainly true that OSOW has edited that article in a non-neutral fashion and needs to balance his approach, you aren't giving us enough time to address those matters with him and get a sense of whether or not he is capable of understanding the criticism and adapting to a more acceptable standard of neutrality. I have my concerns about that and would like to see a more explicit statement from him identifying what went wrong, but he has at least expressed a general desire to do that. Now that's not a guarantee that he can correct his approach enough to comport with the community's expectations, given the very POV place from which his behaviour started--and if he can't, there will probably be a topic ban, sooner or later. But you continually coming at him here is not helping us make an assessment of that central issue and, frankly, it's very aggravating. We know your opinion of him. We know his opinion of you. Now, please, let us engage with him to see if we can resolve this amicably for all parties and without sanction, because that is our preferred outcome, wherever it is viable. So I'm afraid I do rather view the disruption as a two-way street at the moment, and would advise you to be calm and let the process take its course. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have changed my mind about block/topic ban. The editor has apologized and retreated from the mugshot photo. Since the page protection a week or so ago, there has been no edit-warring on the main article, and an RfC about "conspiracy theorist" is proceeding apace. People are allowed to give arguments in the RfC; other people may or may not find them compelling. I don't see any disruption in the discussion, though it has sometimes become heated. I don't see a need for a block; I'll just make a suggestion that parties not WP:BLUDGEON either the RfC or this ANI. Let other people also comment. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have just finished reviewing the evidence and input regarding Oneshotofwhiskey. I will be looking into TheTimesAreAChanging's behavior next. Again, this will take some time; bear with me. In the meantime, my findings and my thoughts regarding Oneshotofwhiskey's conduct is below:

Looking at the evidence presented, I believe that Oneshotofwhiskey's article modifications, as well as his collaboration with other editors over the article - are problematic. I also believe that they show evidence that reasonably establishes that the editor has a point-of-view that is not neutal.

After an SPI was filed against him, he left a message on TheTimesAreAChanging's talk page here. In the message, he accuses TheTimesAreAChanging of "defending the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)", and says that his behavior is due to "egomaniac paranoia". On one of his edits made to the article here, he states in his edit summary that "D'Souza was convicted in a court of law and admitted to knowingly breaking the law", and that "we don't need to re-try his case here, spin this, or make excuses for him." This, to me, clearly shows a non-netural viewpoint by Oneshotofwhiskey.

This viewpoint clearly reflects his editing on the article. For example, TheTimesAreAChanging repeatedly reverted edits restoring the word "knowingly" to the paragraph that describes the article subject's criminal conviction (1, 2, 3, 4). He also replaced the image of the article subject with his mugshot when taken under arrest (1) without consensus or discussion, as well as made an edit here that replaced cited content regarding the article subject's criminal convicion with personal commentary that is against NPOV using the words "without evidence". That same edit also removed content that was cited by the New York Times and without explanation.

Oneshotofwhiskey also engaged in uncivil and defensive behavior towards other editors over this article by casting aspirations, making personal attacks, and refusing to explain particular edits when asked to do so. He also engaged in edit warring over the article, causing it to be fully protected. At the time of this writing, this article is under discretionary sanctions per this ArbCom ruling. Oneshotofwiskey has also been officially notified of the discretionary sanctions regarding this conflict area on his talk page.

With the evidence presented above, and with the findings, input, discussions taken into consideration - I believe that a sanction upon Oneshotofwhiskey from editing any page relating to, or making any edit about, Dinesh D'Souza, broadly construed - is reasonable and justified if the community comes to this conclusion. This is not a ruling; I am not imposing a sanction at this time (I want community input first). Please provide your input and thoughts below. I welcome feedback. Thank you, everybody! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no requirement that editors be neutral. Most editors working on political topics on WP are not neutral. It would be nice to have a mass of disinterested editors who are eager to work on political topics, but that is not the way Wikipedia works; and WP:NPOV specifically states Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. Secondly, all of the diffs above were before the protection had been imposed (around 18-19 October). Since then, there has been about a week's worth of edits to the talk page; there has been no disruption to the article or the talkpage which I can see. Thirdly, several of the statements above are factually wrong; for instance "without evidence" is a paraphrase of the judge's ruling The court concludes the defendant has respectfully submitted no evidence he was selectively prosecuted. It is redundant (because it is in the next sentence) and can be dropped, but it is not WP:OR. The NYT reference was removed for the reason given in the edit summary; it was used to quote D'Souza's defence lawyers and the editor said that one does not need to re-litigate the case on the WP talkpage. One may agree or disagree with the reasoning, but it was present. Lastly, Oneshotofwhiskey should be careful about using phrases like like "egomaniac paranoia" in discussions (it was in a user talk page discussion, not in article space). This is because WP:BLP applies everywhere, and one must be respectful of living persons whatever one may think of them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Kingsindian, I want to thank you for your response and your input regarding my thoughts. I think that part of my response above came out differently than I wanted the words to convey (this happens when I try and write while I'm tired... haha). I've re-read and redacted some of my statements above. I agree that neither editor was notified during the time that disruption was occurring (something I also stated in my ruling at AN3 - and the reason I imposed no sanctions). I also agree that disruption has not continued and that you're right in that the edit I mentioned above can be seen as paraphrasing, not commentary. I should acknowledge that, having decided not to impose sanctions at AN3, it would be perhaps unfair to impose them now. See, this is why I like getting the community involved and opening things up for input as opposed to going, "Whelp, this is how I feel! Klunk!" - thanks again for your response, Kingsindian! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: Oneshotofwhiskey has just been blocked as an action that resulted from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oneshotofwhiskey. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: has asked me to post the following information that came up on his talk page this morning. In Oshwah's closure of the recent AN3 complaint, one of the reasons he gave for not sanctioning Times was that Oshwah did not realize that Times had been given notice of the ARBAP sanctions in November 2015, nearly a year before his recent violation. Times was notified in November 2015 [98] and then, not realizing this, I warned him in Oct 2016, prompting some kind of denial in his edit comment deleting the notification here: [99] shortly thereafter, Robert McClendon also notified him with the template. So, for nearly a year after he was warned of the ARBAP sanctions, editor Times continued his disruptive behavior. A look through his talk page archives shows many editors of all stripes politely asking him to stop personal attacks and battlegrounding, only to receive snarky or accusatory replies. Unlike relatively new editor Whiskey, Times continued to escalate his attacks and disruption even after he was formally notified of DS. (Oshwah, I hope I've accurately conveyed what you suggested.) SPECIFICO talk 03:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"For nearly a year after he was warned of the ARBAP sanctions, editor Times continued his disruptive behavior." I don't think that rather hyperbolic statement can, in fact, be fairly attributed to Oswah, who was only concerned with whether I knew or should have known about the relevant discretionary sanctions. You have produced no evidence of any "disruption" at all prior to this dispute—let alone disruption going back "nearly a year." In fact, I almost never edit articles related to American politics, so I had to check my edit history for the month of November 2015 to see why I might have received such a message. While I have no recollection of the matter, it appears I made one revert at United States presidential election, 1968 on November 12, thus prompting a boilerplate message the following day. I made no other edits even vaguely related to American politics that November, unless you count a very specific foreign policy-related edit to Jimmy Carter: You're going to need more than a single, year-old revert to prove a systematic campaign of disruption targeting American political articles. Until you have gathered such evidence, I would suggest putting the polemics aside.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I had forgot to login when I was making edits and for that I was banned as a sock. It was clear in my edits under that IP that I was arguing with my accuser about his threat to do an API against me and in his responses to me he was aware it was me. I never pretended to be someone else, which is implied by socking. Yet he misrepresented me anyway and tricked the SPI clerks, using this as a tactic. I'm glad this happened as it should be clear now this is wp:gaming. Editors shouldn't weaponize APIs or SPIs against editors. Carefully exam my edits under the IP when I forgot to login and then compare it to what my accuser dishonestly wrote in his SPI, then compare it to his own responses to me when I wasn't logged in, and it should be clear this is gaming. In fact, it was the third SPI against me from him, the first one he was admonished, the 2nd one (sorta) overturned on appeal (in email to me at least) and now this one which is clearly a bad faith accusation. It is not like I made another account to make those replies to him on the talk page. Ridiculous. Same edit war, different tactics. And if this is seen as a block evade, my bad. But I'm limiting this to one comment which is necessary so this ANI isn't further contaminated by his deception. Lotsa luck gentlemen204.96.25.202 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked for a week. It shows that they are unwilling to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and further disruptive behavior should lead to longer blocks. Their writing is too polemical for an encyclopedia. We don't routinely refer to Hitler as a convicted criminal or conspiracy theorist in his article although he served time for trying to overthrow the government of Bavaria and propagated the international Jewish conspiracy theory. The article uses the tone one expects in encyclopedic writing. TFD (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Pageban for Oneshotofwhiskey

Alright, I think it's time we try to bring a resolution to this issue, one way or the other. I had rather hoped we could avoid a sanction here, but the issues are too deep now. Mind you, I think it's conceivable that Oneshotofwhiskey did in fact inadvertently edit while logged out, but taken in the context of the previous disruptive editing, it's just one thing too many--and I suspect I speak for more than myself there. Still, in light of the circumstances, a narrowly-tailored ban seems appropriate. Therefore I propose Oneshotofwhiskey be indefinitely banned from activity on Dinesh D'Souza and its associated talk page. I'd also personally like to advise Oneshot that it might be helpful to avoid political topics, or at least discretionary sanctions topics, until he learns the ropes here--which I hope he will continue to do, once he returns from his two week socking/evading block; we should not like to lose an editor over this if it can be avoided.

I also want to observe that I don't think the disruption was entirely one-sided here. In light of the SPI, I can't see cause to suggest or support a sanction against TheTimesAreAChanging, but I will say there were times I found their approach to the dispute and related issues nearly as over-the-top as that of the person whose disruption they were trying to arrest. I hope TTAAC will take that observation to heart, because there were times I felt I was being misled by his presentation of facts when I followed up a diff or looked into an exchange in detail. That's a bad impression to give your fellow editors, even when it's in pursuit of a "good cause". I hope this proposal reflects the interests of the community, but at least we'll have a consensus one way or the other, it is to be hoped. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support per concerns above. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I understand that people make mistakes and that emotions can flare and to the point where it drives your editing. We've all been there. I also note and acknowledge Kingsindian's response to my thoughts above; I'm completely willing to put the content changes made as AGF and that they are explainable. However, the edits I cannot see past are Oneshotofwhiskey's accusations made here, and explanations such as his edit summary here. I understand if Oneshotofwhiskey had perhaps expressed anger over the SPI and went off at him about it (although still uncivil), but the accusation he made stating that TheTimesAreAChanging was "defending the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)" is another story. The words, to me, show that there's a point of view that's driving these edits, not just frustration. This is what drives the root of my concerns, and is quite frankly one of the main reasons that WP:AC/DS exist in the first place. I also echo Snow Rise's statement above - I don't want this to result in losing Oneshotofwhiskey as an editor. I really hope that he reflects on this as a positive learning experience and someday as a battle scar to show others of his wisdom and experience here. This is the main reason as to why I am in weak support over this proposal. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• support 2 week page ban for Whiskey per above concurrent with his current block. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't going to vote, because I would prefer neutral and uninvolved editors to make the call, but since SPECIFICO—who is very deeply involved in this dispute—has voted, I will do the same. I also support a topic ban for Oneshotofwhiskey due to his consistent pattern of disruptive and WP:NOTHERE behavior, which continued right up until the moment he was blocked on October 26. For evidence, see Oneshotofwhiskey's personal attacks on October 22 ("Sorry, but thankfully the final word on D'Souza isn't wikipedia if you guys succeed in turning this back into a spin page.") and October 25 ("Sorry, TFD. But I don't buy your emotional reasoning.") and his continued edit warring to restore contentious "conspiracy theory" language into the BLP's lead—despite his own pledge not to do so until the relevant RfC was closed—as recently as October 25 (though he made that revert while logged out). In addition, the frankly rather terrifying rants on Oneshotofwhiskey's talk page suggest he has learned little from his experience: See, e.g., "The disruptive editor who falsely accused me continues to act in increasingly bizarre and suspicious behavior ... Since this admin Snow Rise on the API in question is now using this fraudulent SPI as cause for recommending topic bans against me, I would at least ask him for some dignity." (I'm not sure how the SPI was "fraudulent," given that Oneshotofwhiskey admitted to both the socking and the evasion, albeit with the caveat that he thought it was no big deal.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Given SPECIFICO's avowed belief that Oneshot (who she previously had no problems with) has since "reformed" (merely by virtue of being blocked), voters may be interested in his ongoing block evasion and sockpuppetry here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support, as the evidence clearly points to POV, disruptive, tendentious editing while attacking other editors. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Update

OneShotofWhiskey has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. So far, every respondent has voiced support for some degree of pageban here, but I'd venture to say that five responses is insufficient to support a community sanction, and, despite the initial flurry of discussion in this thread, response has been slow and sparse for this proposal. I'm therefore tempted to suggest we should just drop this line of discussion in light of the indef, but I have an inquiry to make before suggesting we move in that direction:

DoRD, I'm a little confused about the nature of the block; the most recent SPI concluded with a block of the involved IP, but no specific finding regarding OSOW. Did you block on a WP:DUCK rationale, taking the circumstances into account, or did you notice other evidence that wasn't necessarily reflected in that discussion? I inquire not to question your administrative action, but because it's relevant to any further approach we might consider here to arrest the disruption; if there's any chance the block might be successfully appealed in the short term, we may wish to continue discussion of the page ban. However, if the indef is likely to stick, I'd say further discussion is superfluous and this thread ought to be closed, since it is proving to be a source of disruption in areas quite aside from what we ultimately decide to do vis-a-vis OneShot. Thanks for any insight you may be able to provide. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The block was based on their continued block evasion mixed with repeated personal attacks. As for whether the block can be successfully appealed or not, that's anyone's guess. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As with this IP that I eventually determined was not him, I was willing to give Oneshot the benefit of the doubt in that last SPI (despite far more substantial DUCK evidence), which is probably why his block had not been extended when Bbb23 moved to archive. However, Oneshot inexplicably began doing the same thing as the IP by leaving edit summaries/messages on his talk page riddled with allusions to past remarks I had made—and that apparent smoking gun, combined with Oneshot's incessant personal attacks, sealed his fate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if I have the chain of events correct here: You're saying that the IP who was the subject of the SPI inquiry was using edit summaries loaded with references to your past exchanges with OSOW, and then, immediately after the SPI closed, OSOW began making comments on his talk page which also used edit summaries with similar allusions? If I have that right, could I trouble you for the diffs, just so the record is complete here? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Bbb23 didn't follow through, so the SPI was still open when Oneshot pushed his luck too far. Everything I said is documented in the archive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we can probably just drop this ANI report. OneShotofWhiskey has been indef'd, and the opposition to sanctions being placed upon the other two editors is clear and consistent. Unless anyone objects, I think we can call this resolved and move on... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Page Ban for TimesAreAChanging

@Snow Rise: I have no particular disagreement with a temporary page-ban relating to D'Souza for Whiskey. I don't see his edits per se as violating policy. He removed a lot of undue and weakly sourced material and some primary rationalizations of D'Souza's behavior. However, he did breach 1RR, so there's that. Of course so did Times, despite many warnings from me and others.

At any rate, what's more important here is that Times, who was definitely edit-warring and violating 1RR per DS on that article should be sanctioned in some way. Times brings a hostile and belligerent attitude to his editing, and unlike Whiskey, Times appears to be short on self-reflection and any acknowledgement of his personal attacks. Times was warned one year ago with the ARBAP DS template. His misdeeds multiplied, and so he was warned twice again more recently. Yet still does he continue to violate not only 1RR but also NPA and other core behavioral norms that ARBAP was intended to ensure.

Whiskey did cease misbehaving, in his article editing, after @Oshwah: closed the AN3 thread. Most of the editors who are have come to this ANI thread may not be aware of the timeline, so they may not realize that Whiskey's reverting, cited again by Oshwah here, came before Oshwah's preventive warning caused Whiskey to take stock and cease his reverting.

So, Snow Rise, in addition to considering your proposed page ban for Whiskey (which I suspect will be unnecessary two weeks hence when his block expires) I do think it's important that this ANI also address the behavior of Times, who clearly needs a wake-up call to help him get into a more collegial and less aggressive mode of collaboration.

I'm going to take the liberty of adding a recommendation to this poll that the Community impose a page ban on Times. It will not be worth anyone's time and attention to bring Times back for yet another ANI or AE thread when he resumes his longtime disruption and personal attacks. If editors could please indicate their !votes for each of these proposals. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, to claim that "Whiskey did cease misbehaving" is only to reveal your own tenuous grasp of the facts surrounding this dispute. If his edit warring abated, that's because I stopped touching the article after being warned, leaving Oneshotofwhiskey to more or less have his way with it for a sustained period of time. Even then, he was reverting as recently as October 25, the day prior to his current block—to say nothing of his continuous personal attacks against several editors. Because I have no particular interest in Dinesh D'Souza, having only recently added it to my Watchlist after seeing last summer's D'Souza-Cenk Uygur Politicon debate, I would not be terribly upset if both Oneshotofwhiskey and myself were banned from the topic. I would, however, point out that you have produced no evidence to suggest the necessity of such a ban, making your proposal seem like a distraction and an attempt to "split the baby."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Times says Whiskey reverted something on 10/25. True enough. However, Times' edit warring continued through the 26th. Half truths and accusations like this put the rest of us in a draconian time sump trying to restore civility. This is exactly why Times needs a theraputic time out to reframe his approach to this topic and his WP colleagues. Does it make any sense that we close this long thread -- with prima facie violations of ARBAP2 -- only to see the community go through the same exercise at Arbcom Enforcement? Let's do the right thing and wrap it up here. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a fallacy to suggest that, because Oneshotofwhiskey and myself both made edits to the article, we were both being equally disruptive. Oneshotofwhiskey was edit warring to restore contentious "conspiracy theory" language into the lead of a BLP—despite his own pledge not to do so until the relevant RfC was closed. Moreover, while the RfC is still ongoing, the current consensus seems to be against including that language in Wikipedia's voice, so it is hardly surprising that another user (not myself, as I was still maintaining a strict laissez-faire policy at the time) attempted to water it down: What was absolutely shocking—and incredibly disruptive—was Oneshotofwhiskey's prompt revert, which arguably constituted a BLP violation and thus was not subject to normal edit warring restrictions. I do not see how my restoration of the old lead on October 26 could be considered any more "disruptive" than your deletions on October 27. Note that between your edit summary there and your comments here, both you and Iselilja seem to have endorsed my rationale for reverting the WP:BOLD addition of a subsection on D'Souza's "marriage scandal"—if there is broad consensus for such a change I can hardly be called "disruptive" for enforcing the will of the community and restoring the long-standing version. Again, your edit summary here is highly significant: Having argued that certain language is a BLP violation in reference to the Clinton Foundation, it would be very hypocritical of you to assert that nearly identical language is not a BLP violation in reference to D'Souza ... But if you've conceded that the material I reverted constituted a BLP violation similar to the violation you removed around the same time, then you have no case for a page ban whatever. In the best case scenario, perhaps you did not literally believe your own rationale in that edit summary and were merely being WP:POINTY—yet that, too, would reflect a rather unbecoming WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. In fact, if you think using the term "scandal" in reference to the Clinton Foundation constitutes a BLP violation, it's hard to see how you could maintain that not only the "marriage scandal" section of the D'Souza article but especially the claim that D'Souza promotes "conspiracy theory"—arguably the most serious BLP violation of all—is perfectly fine and acceptable, all the while praising Oneshotofwhiskey's "constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite page ban per my comments above. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see any POV-related issues to impose a sanction upon TimesAreAChanging. Sure, his collaboration and frustration was not the best, and the edit warring on the article wasn't good either, but I don't see any specific content-related concerns that make me feel that a page ban is necessary. I think that TimesAreAChanging should take the feedback mentioned in this ANI thread to heart, and learn from his mistakes. Other than this, I feel that a page ban is unnecessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this appears to be retaliatory and unwarranted. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: What do you mean by "retaliatory"? Do you mean for the personal attacks Times has made against me? If so, what do you think of editors who make personal attacks? Wouldn't that be more a reason to support rather than oppose? What do you believe I was retaliating for and why? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You're retaliating because I exposed your friend Oneshot—from whom you are now trying to distance yourself. (The proof is that SPECIFICO did not raise my days-old conduct as an issue here until shortly after two editors voted to topic ban Oneshot.) BTW, I'm honest enough to concede I was being similarly retaliatory when I advocated a topic ban for you—not because your conduct was not objectionable, but because I know it takes much more spectacular wrong-doing to achieve the requisite support, and even then it's a toss-up: Despite his egregious offenses, Oneshot had an excellent chance of evading sanctions for lack of consensus before a crazed series of sockpuppet attacks got him indeffed. With that, it's time to wrap this thread up. (I did find it amusing that within minutes of my broaching your actions this message appeared—your edit history doubtless deserves a more thorough investigation, but that doesn't mean I'll be the one to do it.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Times recently stated that I, SPECIFICO, have "avowed belief" that Whiskey had "reformed" etc. etc. I'd like to ask Times to document this assertion with a diff. To support his push to get me sanctioned in this thread, Times continues linking me to this apparent sockpuppeteer, for whom I have above endorsed a stiff topic ban. Undocumented aspersions against other editors is ipso facto a blockable infraction. As long as we're gathered on this page, I'd like Times to provide diffs to document each of the numerous aspersions and allegations he's made about me and the thoughts and motivations he imputes to me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow!—To go from praising Oneshot's "constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments" to referring to him solely as "this apparent sockpuppeteer" is cold, SPECIFICO! As to the rest:

• SPECIFICO endorsed a topic ban to last no longer than the two week block Oneshot was already serving, which would have accomplished nothing besides giving her plausible deniability to distance herself from him later on if necessary.
• As usual with SPECIFICO's edits, I have no idea what game she's playing by so emphatically insisting that she never suggested Oneshot had "reformed"; everyone here surely remembers her assurance just days ago that "Whiskey did cease misbehaving." Such casual lying (or, to put it more delicately, word games) may not be a blockable offense, but it does make her an unusually difficult editor to deal with—and, for that reason, I probably won't be responding again: I'm tired of the drama.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment When I pinged @Softlavender: for a clarification of his comment above, Times pre-empted Lavender's reply by launching another series of accusations about me. In the course of these, he acknowledges that he knowingly abused this forum to try for an unjustifiable TBAN on me, see here I leave it to others assembled here to decide how to deal with this in the context of the last 2 weeks of undocumented aspersions, personal attacks, and ARBAP violations. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

As explained below and reiterated above, you should be topic banned for the listed reasons. I'm sure Softlavender will respond on her own time if she deigns to do so.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Page Ban for SPECIFICO

In addition to praising Oneshotofwhiskey's "constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments"—such as replacing the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot and referring to the "egomaniac paranoia" of other contributors—SPECIFICO's own edits to Dinesh D'Souza are plagued with serious NPOV problems. I won't bore you with the more minor incidents (like when she falsely attributed the otherwise quite uninformative polemical assertion "Hillary's America may well be the single dumbest documentary that I have ever seen in my life" to the long-dead critic Roger Ebert, thus inflating its significance to potential readers), but will instead limit my proposal to what I consider the most egregious example of SPECIFICO acting in bad faith: SPECIFICO joined the edit war on Oneshotofwhiskey's behalf to restore a separate "Marriage Scandal" section in D'Souza's BLP, even though—elsewhere in the same article—she deleted any mention of Clinton Foundation "scandals" or even "controversies" as "BLP violations." Combined with her crucial role in supporting, encouraging, and enabling Oneshotofwhiskey's worst behavior, the fact that SPECIFICO knowingly added content she thought constituted a BLP violation in one case, while removing it in another—all based on the political beliefs of the living persons in question—is very problematic behavior, meriting a warning at least, and a page ban at most. (Of course, unlike D'Souza's "Marriage Scandal," Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy is notable enough to have its own article, so my formulation is if anything excessively deferential to SPECIFICO.)

• Support as nominator. (BTW, while I understand SPECIFICO can always plausibly deny that she was fully aware of the "Marriage Scandal" BLP violations her revert introduced into the article on October 13, she cannot claim that she had never argued such language constituted a BLP violation prior to October 27, because she had in fact made the same argument on September 7. If she does deny that she knew what she was doing, then I will strike my support and content myself with a warning.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see issues that measure up to the level of needing to impose any sanctions here. The message that SPECIFICO left here seemed neutral and reasonable. This edit she made has multiple problems, sure. I also note that it's understandable for editors to question this edit because of the possible use of a primary source - but that's absolutely irrelevant to me. The reason I oppose this proposition is because of the fact that these diffs are the only edits that this user has made to this article in October (with the exception of this one), or at least that I could find. She did not edit war, and she has been seen as a neutral party in the recent events with this article. I see no reason to consider a sanction, and the assertions presented here appear to have absolutely no merit at all. If I missed something, or if more evidence comes to light, please ping me and let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Just making a follow-up to state that edits have been made to the article by SPECIFICO since my previous response. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I reviewed SPECIFICO's edits tot hat article and they appear to me to improve neutrality, for example reducing the use of value judgments in favour of passive statements. Guy (Help!) 00:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Although SPECIFICO's interactions may be a bit abrasive at times, he is clearly not the source of the problems here. LK (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting closure

The initial request for action here concerned the behaviour of a party (Oneshotofwhiskey) who has since been indefinitely blocked. A proposal, presented before that indef, would have page banned that user from the article where this dispute took root (Dinesh D'Souza), but an insufficient number of responses have been received to support it (in my opinion), and it is arguably superfluous in light of the indef.

Two other proposals for pagebans between two other involved parties (TheTimesAreAChanging and SPECIFICO) were made, but both have failed to get any support beyond each of those parties feeling the other should be banned. Frankly, I think both of those proposals were WP:SNOWBALL suggestions that reflect a WP:Battleground mentality between those editors, and that the disruption here cannot be wholly lain at the feat of the editor who ultimately ate the indef; indeed, I think both TTAAC and SPECIFICO may have benefited from the fact that Oneshot became a lightning rod for community response here (by being so foolish as to try to covertly edit the article and then try to evade his short term block). Regardless, neither of their proposals is going anywhere, and this thread ought to be closed so as not to continue to be a source of animosity and disruption beyond the question of what to do about OSOW, which now seems to be a moot issue. I'd close the discussion myself with comments consistent with the above, but I think it is best to have an admin who has not previously commented here put this to rest. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing here to close. Just let it expire to automatic archiving. That's what happens when threads die out and nobody cares. There's really nothing to close. PS. I am not involved I was in the crossfire and got attacked. See ya. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the thread will not in fact be automatically archived so long as posts continue to be made to it, and you and TTAAC have continued to engage over your mutual ban proposals and general accusations of disruption, even after Oneshot was indeffed. So yes, I think a close would be beneficial here. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Dharmadhyaksha

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

---

They have recently been mass nominating talk pages for deletion. The talk pages are of redirects and files. They have given WP:G8 as reason for file talk pages where files did exist and WP:G6 as reason for redirects.Targeted files talk pages were my creation, I created them for the purpose of adding WikiProject banner tags which are useful in many ways. In my opinion the user is angry with me because of my this edit, whatever may be the reason for this, their edits look disruptive. They have also warned for more such edits in future. I think I am yet to receive a logical explanation from them. This kind of disruptive editing needs to be stopped. Pratyush (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Redirect pages redirect you to the appropriate pages immediately, except where you actively seek out the redirect page. It is not necessary to place WP:Project banners on redirect pages, they are rarely used for any purpose except to direct readers and editors to the page the want to go to. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is not necessary, but they are helpful is articles alerts, WikiProject watchlist, etc. Pratyush (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have been given logical explanations by me and @SpacemanSpiff: at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#Littering... which you do not want to hear/understand. I have not tagged a single "File talk:" domain page where file existed here on en wiki; unlike what you falsely claim in your opening statement. "Targeted file" were not your creation. In fact, no files have been targeted at all. Targets have been talk pages of files that were your creations only for sticking banners of WikiProject India/Bihar/Mithila/Patna. Please assume good faith; whatever be "my" reasons of nominations are immaterial as long as the reasons are found suitable by community and multiple admins who have already deleted a large lot of tagged pages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff is your long time Wikifriend. Their opinion has high chances of bias. Files were a typo, the first line itself says Talk pages are being deleted. Project banners were placed in good faith and they are useful in many ways. Pratyush (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion on Spaceman's Talk page only proves there was nothing wrong with my edits. Both Spaceman and you were not able to answer why my edits are wrong. Pratyush (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are accusing an admin of malpractices you should provide evidences with rational reasoning based on policies/guidelines. Even if your bannering was done in good faith that is no reason to keep it to appease you or something. I have heard it plenty times for now how your edits were "useful" but evidently neither me or others are finding in useful. You were asked to explain their usefulness but instead you simply stuck up some wikilink that made no sense as a reply. Additionally, I will request you to keep all concerned discussion now just on this page and not take it elsewhere for simplicity of all users. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Issue with removal of cited content

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

---

I've had an issue finding a common ground with @K.e.coffman: - this editor made many edits/reversions to Nutanix based on WP:PROMO which I found to be pretty bold, but through discussion I have attempted to find common ground in removing content that does fit WP:PROMO (see here Talk:Nutanix#Not_promotional). My issue is that this editor appears to always simply revert to their version, citing it is less promotional - this version has also removed reliable sourced information, that, when added back, this editor simply removes citing the same original point. I have reached an impasse and cannot find a way to work with this editor, even after attempting numerous times to find common ground and a way to work the material without removing such a substantial amount. My issue is not with restructuring the article and removing any promotional pieces, but this should not be at the expense of reliable information that adds to the article. Comments? Garchy (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Three comments:

1. This is a content dispute and a cursory read of the talk-page suggests consensus is against your position
2. This is WP:ANI, which is not intended to solicit comments, but to request admin action based on an editors behavior.
3. Please read WP:DISPUTE. Also read WP:BOOMERANG.

HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I did post this in the wrong area. I don't think I'm shooting myself in the foot - consensus on the page is to remove promotional material, my issue is the non-promotional material that was tossed into the edit. Garchy (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated reinsertion of copyvio text

Editor: 大越古風

Article: Nguyễn Lưu Hải Đăng

• Copyvio removed by Metropolitan90 [100]
• Replaced copyvio text [101]
• Warned about copyvio [102]
• Replaced copyvio text after warning [103].
• Replaced copyvio text second time after warning [104]

Jbh^Talk 12:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have revision-deleted the versions which contained the poem. BethNaught (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Jbh^Talk 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest edits of Observium by User:Mike_Stupalov

I recently attempted to make an edit to Observium. I observed that there had been previous NPOV disputes on this page involving people with a commercial interest in both this product and its competitor. With this in mind, I was careful to make my edit as non-contentious, factual, and accurately sourced as possible, and published my intentions on the talk page in plenty of time. Despite this, my edit was immediately reverted by User:Mike_Stupalov. This user has previously been advised about "Managing a conflict of interest" in relation to their edits of this page and I believe they are not being neutral towards this topic as a result of their affiliation with it. Similar reverts have been made by IP IP 217.79.6.154. There is a lot of discussion at Talk:Observium. Catphish (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Beginning conflict resolution Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 16:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-creation of a recently deleted page, et al.

Both Infopage100 (talk · contribs) and XPanettaa (talk · contribs) were active in the deletion discussion for this page (among many other similar) and both have now been blocked. I assume one of them has created a new sock account, namely Spodermin69 (talk · contribs), to recreate this page with similarly poor sources and similar information etc. I assume this is block evasion, so should be brought here? If not, do I need to open a new SPI for such matters? Either way the articles these two (and TheMagnificentist (talk · contribs), who is also blocked) were active in keep mysteriously finding new, zealous, editors to pick up the mantle - what's the best way to combat this? Cheers, Nikthestunned 17:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The behavior relating to XPanettaa in particular was compelling enough for me to check. It's possible based on geolocation that Spodermin69 is related to XPanettaa. Infopage100 is not related. There's an SPI already for XPanettaa, and future requests should go there. Katie^talk 17:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I protected the redirect at Bougenvilla for a year if that helps. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive editing by IP user: 181.230.46.29

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

---

Ok, so IP address: 181.230.46.29 is constantly making edits to the figures on the Nirvana discography page that are not as per the sources being quoted in the article. This has actually gone on for months now with me reverting his edits back to as per the sources being quoted in the article. Almost, an edit-war, but the IP user prefers to edit the article rather than use the revert button. I have left messages on the said user's talk page, but this is ignored and he or she continues to make the same edits of adding information that is not only false but not as per source. Wikipedia is all about reflecting the sources is it not ? I have also notified the IP user's talk page (User talk:181.230.46.29) that I am reporting the issue to admin. Maybe a block would be suitable or to make the article so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI, if you file a report here you are expected to use the notification template from the top of the page. Especially new or passing editors, likely have no idea this board exists, and may not know what "I'm reporting you to an admin" means. I took care of it, but something to keep in mind of you end up having to come back here in the future. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've warned the IP for edit warring. While the edits on the article surely don't measure up to the frequency per 3RR, the fact that back-and-fourth reverts are occurring repeatedly and without discussion constitutes edit warring in my book. This will hopefully get the user to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, or otherwise collaborate. If it doesn't, and the user continues after being warned, let one of us know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Picarones

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

---

There is constant vandalism at the Picarones article that seems to have no end. I took this case to ANI two times before. Despite the article being well-referenced, there seems to be numerous IP's constantly making disruptive edits without even taking it to the talk page, a number of these IP's having been blocked for these actions. Not sure if these edits are made by different vandals or the same with different IPs. Here are a few examples (yes, there's more where these came from): [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], and these are from recently today by a new IP: [110].

And even before this even happened, there was constant edit warring in the article (none of them even reaching consensus in the talk page), specially over the origins of Picarones. In conclusion, I want for the page to be protected or for there to be a way for people to take their case in the talk page before they engage to edit the article, which has led to relentless edit-wars and disruptive editings in various different times. I might take this case to WP:RFPP. And considering that there seems to be no end to these disruptive edits, I think the article needs to be protected or require registration indefinitely. (N0n3up (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC))

• You got it. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies. (N0n3up (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

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

Natasha Lytess

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

---

This article was recreated after being deleted (see [111]), due to salacious and potentially libelous material contained within, and redirected in name only to Marilyn Monroe by @Timotheus Canens on 26 August 2015. @Savolya recreated the article with an edit summary "Natasha Lytess needs her own page", recreating the same concerns, possibly without even checking for the reasons the page was deleted. @Savolya has had numerous edits reverted for copyright vios and/or infringement. I do not recall how serious the exact concerns that were raised at that AFD in August 2015 but I do know they were serious enough for the admin to strike a large portion of the original article from view. Quis separabit? 00:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about the copyvio concerns, but I can't delete this as G4--maybe half of it is different, and the sources are different. Funny thing is that the sources for the deleted version looked a lot better. Maybe the next admin thinks they're "the same enough" for G4 deletion, but if that doesn't happen, you could AfD it with the suggestion that it be SALTed. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Rms125a@hotmail.com, you can check the prior AfD yourself, by creating a standard AfD url and using the article's name; I've done it here for you: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natasha_Lytess. Beyond that, I agree with Drmies' suggestion and points. Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Pamela Geller and counter-jihad

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

---

Pamela Geller, the woman behind the anti-Muslim Atlas Shrugs blog, and best known for her opposition to Park51 (which she called the "Ground Zero Mega Mosque") is described by numerous academic sources as being a prominent activist for the counter-jihad movement in the United States.

NickCT (talk · contribs) has been removing (123456) the counter-jihad movement statement that is backed by at least 8 different sources from academic journals and textbooks, claiming there is an RfC on the lede wording. I started a discussion on the talk page here to inquire about it and replied that the RfC in question is 5-year old, and it does not even remotely refer to "counter-jihad" nevermind considered in one of the RfC's options (it was not known/understood as a movement at that time I suppose) and that his removal of counter-jihad from the article constituted a revert on a version that was agreed upon in an earlier discussion back in July 2016 (Talk:Pamela Geller#Counter-Jihad activist). I have repeatedly explained that the claim for "counter-jihad activist" comes from 8 academic citations from relevant experts in the field, all published in quality reliable sources. They are all in agreement with the "counter-jihad" description and are more recent than the 5-year old RfC.

The response I've received from NickCT has not been conducive to consensus-building IMO. He claimed that (1) the WP policy on consensus requires that a new RfC be raised before any change could be made and (2) that there is a sourcing problem, yet when pressed to explain what the problem really is, he would say "Tad curious why you think I need to address the sources here", and (3) that "'Counter-jihad' is language used by a lot of apologists for islamophobia".

Finally, I have tried to compromise by maintaining the old wording of the RfC ("known for her anti-Islamic writings") and appending the counter-jihad claim to it (change), and even that is not acceptable to him.

In short, I believe his constant referral to the (outdated) RfC is being used at this point to disrupt further changes to improve the article with new information. Worth mentioning here, that his recent reverts undid content added to the body of the article, and not just the lede. This fact combined with his claims of an "apologist" conspiracy behind the counter-jihad label makes me doubt this stubbornness is all about maintaining an RfC. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In short, this is another content dispute that doesn't belong on ANI. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

POV pushing on Merle Dixon

Could someone take a look at Merle Dixon? In the first season of The Walking Dead he is clearly depicted as a racist and the other characters call him a "redneck". He calls a black character the n-word, called a Latino character a taco vendor, and when he returns in the third season he calls another Latino character "brownie", etc. But this IP user has been trying to remove these terms for a few days now, saying things in the edit summary like "He showed only one case in the first season to no he is not a racist", "Redneck is a racist term and is like calling a black person N word so that can not describe him as a character" and that removing the word redneck "is not pov pushing just because it's not the n word does not mean it can't be racist".

[112] [113] [114] [115][116][117][118][119] 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, here we go, someone compiled a list of evidence: http://spoilthedead.com/forum/showthread.php/4469-Nicknames-by-Merle  :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, here we go, someone compiled a list of evidence: http://spoilthedead.com/forum/showthread.php/4469-Nicknames-by-Merle  :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Descriptors of this fictional character should be drawn from reliable secondary sources, not from personal observation in watching he show. I note the article does contain an external reference for the "racist" descriptor; there seems no justification for removing it from the text but the question is really whether also including it in the lead gives it undue weight.

This is a content issue which should ideally be discussed on the article talkpage. To facilitate this I've briefly semi-protected the article - if the discussion also needs additional eyes you might consider a third opinion or an RfC. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus, thank you for reviewing. I will definitely review this over the next week or so. There are reviews for all of the episodes the character appeared in (maybe a dozen episodes in all), so I will see what the reviewers had to say about him specifically and try to focus on that. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Guto2003

I got reverted [120] by this POV-pusher and went to see their talk page. I must say I am impressed. Is there any reason they still have an empty block log since 2012?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow. GAB^gab 21:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

...And, double-wow. GAB^gab 21:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, particularly your second diff was a deal-breaker for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

And now the user responded: [121]--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

They have always been insulting in edit summaries. However in general their edits are in line with NPOV despite their political stance. We wouldnt call someone a dictator unless the reliable sources also do. Even the Kim Jong-Il article avoids doing it directly, and there is no mention of it at all at Todor Zhivkov. Which is probably why there are many complaints on their talkpage about incivility over the years, but no actual sanctions nor have they been dragged to noticeboards. Wikipedian's tolerance for incivility is remarkably high for editors who are substantially correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not know. Is it ok to create a redirect Hitlery Clinton which was deleted as an attack page? Is it ok to add a category "Anti-communist terrorists" to articles where no terrorism has never been mentioned? I would say that whereas some edits might be ok, there is a large fraction of edits which are certainly not ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Can a redirect like that even be an attack page? Its not as if it contains any material and the term has wide usage in some areas (Trump supporters). Are negative redirects deleted routinely? (Genuine question, given the vast amount of ridiculous and in some cases obviously insulting redirects we still have) The Azov battallion are certainly anti-communist and I have seen them described as terrorists - albeit in partisan press. Categories are required to have a reliable reference in the article to support the category, as far as I know they are not required for the article to contain the exact wording that the category covers. Since Guto2003 said the category was supported by the sourcing in the article, the next question would be 'which one?'. But again, this is largely irrelevant. If the core complaint is that they are using insulting edit summaries, this has been going for *years* and no one has seen fit to do anything about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The core complaint is that they are here only for POV pushing, and a considerable fraction of their edits is borderline vandalism. Concerning the Azov battalion, I am definitely not a fan of this ultraright-paramilitary-unit-sudenly-turned-elite-detachment, but there are just no reliable sources describing them as terrorists. Certainly not in the article, never been there. Nazi - yes, nationalist - yes, terrorist - no. And the user ferfectly knows that, they just do not care.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see how someone could even argue that their edits are in line with NPOV. Removing contentious labels is all well and good if you're not strictly doing so for leftist topics but adding them to rightist ones, especially without sources. They've created a category to label terrorists, out of line with the MOS and precedent (see the cats for Al Qaeda or al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya to see how we actually categorize "terrorist groups"), without providing any sources, regarding groups with an ideology that is the polar opposite of their own. Moreover they've shown a flippant disregard the community in dismissing numerous warnings and making personal attacks. Hitlery Clinton was a serious BLP violation and when it was deleted they brushed off the warning like they simply didn't care. I'm strongly inclined to block indefinitely here. Swarm ♠ 19:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  You definitely have my full support for an indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

user:Javier.alonso.martinez

the edits blare the SPA and wp:notability alarms.Minimobiler (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• There is no alarm for notability. If you think the player is not notable, tag it for deletion. No need to take this to ANI. Also, please supply details and diffs, and notify the editor. You're talking about Javier Alonso. GiantSnowman, is this person notable? Drmies (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Drmies: - no he is not. I'll PROD. GiantSnowman 07:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced content; User hostile to repeated urgings to adhere to verifiability

• Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I asked this editor to include citations for her additions on the following two pages: Visa requirements for Venezuelan citizens and Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens. She added aproximately 150 data points in columns titled "Reciprocity" in tables on both those pages, none of which are cited. When I asked her to provide a source she responded as follows: On her own talk page: "Since the answer is merely a "Yes" or "no", I don't see why sourcing of references is required" ; On my talk page: "Reciprocity is just a matter of "Yes" or "No", sourcing of reference isn't required." ; On user:Arjayay's talk page: "I find it ridiculous that undisputable facts have to be sourced with reliable references." She has since deleted the conversation thread from her own talk page.

This editor has been blocked twice and taken to ANI once over persistent addition of unsourced content. After urging by many other editors to review Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines over the past several months, she still seems intent on ignoring them. She has also tried to use "other stuff exists" to justify the additions to these two pages, something she has done before and been warned about several times before.

This editor has also accused me of maliciously attacking her in the past and of reverting her most recent edits, both things I have not done. I have always approached this editor under the assumption that she is making contributions in good faith.

Thanks for looking at this. Ivancurtisivancurtis (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Arjayay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have stopped my edits on those page after hearing the advise user:Arjayay offered to me (which he has told me many times before) and I have acknowledged his explanation. I was getting irritated as User:Ivancurtisivancurtis kept leaving his message on my talk page way too often such that it made me assume that I have committed some sort of seriously illegal offense as I am afraid of getting warnings or even getting blocked/banned from editing as some editors may impose their personal judgments on me without hearing my side of the story, I am really sorry if I seem to be hostile to Ivancurtisivancurtis as I sounded way to selfish or defensive of my actions when questioned by other editors on my talk page in the past. If I have not broken guidelines, other editors wouldn't be leaving their message on my talk page in an attempt to challenge me to explain for the rationale behind every single of my edits. I believe that most edits on Wikipedia requires proper and reliable references but I had the assumption that it doesn't require a reference for and since it's something that is totally straight forward to me. I have hardly seen any references attached next to a "tick" and "cross" based on my past experience but I could be wrong as well on that. Any of you can have a look at my previous edits and you will realised that not all of my edits involves unsourced materials. In fact, my most recent edits are mostly focused on adding proper references, correcting bare URLs and fixing broken links. I sincerely apologise for causing any misunderstandings here between me and User:Ivancurtisivancurtis. Please forgive me on my actions (stubbornness and stupidity as well) but I encourage any of you here to continue to observe my edits, providing me with guidance and advice in the meantime. Thank you for your understanding and patience here in hearing my perspectives. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Love by N page spamming

Users Lovebyn00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Nour Aboulela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created very similar, if not the same promotional page ( Love By N and Nour Aboulela ) . Might warrant an IP block. A picture of a dead fish (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and Chiropractic

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

---

Recently Chiropractic has repeatedly been labelled as pseudoscience and it seems now that a serious dispute/edit war is developing. Before that happens like to know what part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience has prevalence here: point 1 (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Neutral point of view) or point 15 (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious pseudoscience).

Claiming in the first sentence that Chiropract is a pseudoschience is - in my personal opinion - negative labelling contrary to point 1 of the Pseudoschience case.

I am aware that the practise is controversial but I like a clarification if this edit] is correct or in breach of the ArbCom-case. The Banner talk 21:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest you take it to the WP:VILLAGEPUMP, since this is a content dispute, which does not belong here. Kleuske (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As to any developing editwar, you removed it three times.^{1, 2, 3} It got reinstated by various other editors. It seems you are editing against consensus, which may be regarded as disruptive. Kleuske (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Too bad that you overlook the fact that it was removed three times by two other users and reinstated six times, by multiple users. But that is not the matter here. I am asking for clarification of the ArbCom decision. The Banner talk 22:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Then you're still editing against consensus. A cursory search on google scholar reveals tons of sources calling it "pseudoscience". AFAICT, there's no discrepancy between #1 and #15. This belong on the talkpage, since it's still a content dispute. Fringe Theories Noticeboard may also be appropriate. Kleuske (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Still it is possible that it is unnecessary negative labelling, violating WP:NPOV. The Banner talk 22:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources say otherwise. I'm sure you have actually searched for sources, so you ought to know that. Kleuske (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. The Banner talk 23:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't. Wikipedia is intended to neutrally summarize the sources. If the sources say it's pseudoscience, WP:NPOV requires we call it pseudoscience. Kleuske (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to alert the Fringe Theories Noticeboard of this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Please do. Any clarification will be welcome. The Banner talk 22:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I am not going to express any opinions on this per CIR (which I fail badly on this topic) but I will say that I can recall instances where chiropracty has been labeled as pseudoscience at FTN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
      • That's because the basis of chiropracty is pseudoscience; the belief that all disease results from misalignments in the spine that compress the spinal nerves, which can be cured by manipulation of the spine (i.e. clearly nonsense). The only argument that it is not pseudoscience is, as the article points out, that modern chiropractors often offer conventional therapies as well; however, vertebral subluxation is WP:BOLLOCKS. Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Not "recently", chiropractic has been labelled as pseudoscience for decades. The defining philosophy of chiropractic is the ridiculous nonsense of "innate" and the non-existent chiropractic subluxation; study of both of these is ongoing, and is blatantly pseudoscientific. The only question is how best to represent this well established fact. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

It's simple to figure out, really. Is the practice described as such in multiple, reliable sources? If yes, then we put that in the lead, prominently. If not, then we don't. Unless I'm missing something unique about this specifically. Valeince (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the OP would prefer the term "quackery"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The article does not hide its criticism and disbelieve in the practice. But to put it in the first sentence is something different, especially as the same is happening on Acupuncture where the consensus about pseudoscience/unproven is less clear. The Banner talk 08:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

And there doesn't seem to be a need for either content dispute to be on ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Telling the truth may do harm. Count Iblis (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Richard Madenfort/Rick Marty

For nine years now, some registered accounts and primarily Pennsylvania IPs have been adding guitarist/producer Richard Madenfort (aka Rick Marty, aka MadDog) to lots of music articles, despite nothing published to support the assertions. There is a real-life person in Pennsylvania who has Facebook photos showing he has been a guitarist in various bands since the late 1980s. The problem here is that his contribution has not been the subject of discussion in reliable sources. I found out about this guy today because of a recent push by some accounts to create redirects for him and to put wikilinks around his name wherever it appears, sending our readers uselessly to the redirects.

Back in August 2007, Noneof yourbusiness48 put up a biography at Rick marty but it was speedily deleted.[122] The guy continued socking to get his name back in. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noneof yourbusiness48 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive914#IP disruptive editing. Bbb23 served as checkuser and blocking admin.

Redirects

• Richard Madenfort
• Richard Madenfort (musician)
• Rick Marty
• Rick Marty (musician)

Previously deleted

• Rick marty

Involved accounts

• 181.215.138.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Chicago)
• 181.215.114.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Chicago)
• 98.111.115.31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Harrisburg)
• 50.153.172.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Harrisburg)
• 153.92.43.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hong Kong)
• 2601:983:8001:BC50:5D14:766D:2100:42F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hershey)
• 2601:983:8001:BC50:18F:FB84:43FF:7755 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hershey)
• 2601:983:8000:E01C:98F3:24A5:680F:F5DC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hershey)
• 2601:983:8000:E01C:6D46:E74D:83B0:21C2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hershey)
• 98.235.99.28 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hershey)
• Draftwait (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Skipbaize (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Snakelumps123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Visacreek (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Manfromoscal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rickmartyfanclub (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Neweditorintown (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Examples

• 9 September 2016 – Adding Rick Marty to disambiguation page
• 8 September 2016 – Creating page Richard Madenfort
• 15 April 2016 – Adding Richard Madenfort to credits on Sundown Heaven Town
• 3 March 2016 – Adding MadDog to credits for Peace Is the Mission
• 2 March 2016 – Adding Richard Madenfort to credits for ReJoyce: The Christmas Album
• 2 March 2016 – Adding Richard Madenfort to credits for Joy to the World (Faith Hill album)
• 20 February 2016 – Adding Richard Madenfort to the credits for Show Me How
• 4 September 2015 – Adding a quote from Richard Madenfort to Jem and the Holograms (film)
• 4 September 2015 – Talking about Richard Madenfort making cameo appearances in Nashville (2012 TV series)

I would like to see the redirects deleted as they do not lead our readers to any information about this guy. I would also appreciate some assistance in finding out exactly what legitimate credits this guy has, so that we can remove all the unreferenced and otherwise unsupported listings. I get the feeling we are working with a hoaxer, or at least someone who is padding his resume. From his angle it appears he's frustrated that he has not been given proper credit for his creative work, as suggested in this post. If there's a real biography that we can write, even a barebones stub, then we can establish a defensible page of the guy's known associations and works. That way we can point to a consensus when he tries to add unreferenced stuff. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @Binksternet: I am cross-posting this from the ANI archive because I would like assistance in removing any listings of Rick Marty or Richard Madenfort from articles. The socks in question have already been blocked, but the content has not yet been reverted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

California Proposition 13 (1978)

The article appears to be a focus of multiple new registered accounts--my guess is it's a school project--but the edits have included copyright violations and inadequately sourced content, or content sourced to a paywall site. I've reverted one of the copied passages, but given the number of accounts and the dubious nature of some of the additions, I'd appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• I removed the copyvio you signaled but that's all I can do right now--I'm watching a game of stickball on TV where blue team was winning but now the others got two points and they have the same number of points. So now I have to eat a hotdog, I think. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't forget the soda! In all seriousness, I have undone two edits for various reasons and will look more into it tomorrow when I am near a computer. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. EEng 03:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC Closure

Hi. A user (@Sparkie82:) keeps undoing an RfC closure which is very disruptive and this is not the first time the user's been disruptive. Diffs of reverting RfC close: [123] [124] and [125]. If an admin could please reiterate to this user that the RfC has already been closed (and should remain closed) and/or block this user, that would be great. Thanks! Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Both of you should just drop the stick. Edit other topics. There's no need for this to escalate, especially since it's subject to ArbCom enforcement. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: "If you continue to flog the poor old debate, if you try to reopen it" that's exactly what Sparkie82 has been doing by undoing the RfC close. The RfC closer said that we should have a compromise discussion in a separate section (which is what I started at the talk page) so reopening the RfC does not help. This is not about "winning" or "losing" this is about trying to find a constructive compromise. And for what it's worth, my compromise proposal is actually based on Sparkie82's compromise proposal! But If I'm not mistaken there's a process for having someone's RfC closure undone (I would know since it happened to me). First you go to the closer's talk page, then if that doesn't resolve anything you go to the Admin noticeboard. But what this issue is about is Sparkie82 constantly being disruptive and getting away with it. I'm trying to find a compromise that Sparkie82 and the users that support Sparkie82's viewpoint as well as users that are against his viewpoint can back so we can put this thing behind us once and for all. But the RfC discussion is over with and if we re-opened discussion there, there's a good chance a lot of people would not realize that discussion is continuing there. That discussion has already come to a halt. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sparkie82 is correct that a contentious RfC such as this should run for 30 days. However, I don't see anywhere that this was actually an WP:RFC. In that case, it should not be "closed" at all. Moreover, the "close" by MartinZ02 (a user with only 1,700 edits to his name) wasn't an objective close at all but a personal opinion, which should simply be added at the bottom to all of the other opinions in the discussion. I agree with Sparkie82 that however one looks at it, this is an inappropriate close. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  In what way was it not an objective close. —MartinZ02 (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You were WP:INVOLVED in the discussion and the article [126], [127]; it was far too soon; it was not a discussion that even warranted a close (it was not an RfC); there was no obvious consensus; you merely inserted your opinion ("Therefore I personally recommend that ...."); and most of all you do not have nearly enough experience on Wikipedia to be closing discussions. Softlavender (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• While closing most discussions doesn't need to be done by an administrator, it should be done by a user with a plausable likelyhood of becoming one, should they run immediately. 1700 edits is nowhere near enough to qualify fo this criterion,. And ArbCom enforcement areas need a higher level of care in handling, and probably should only be handled by admins. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  If that is true, it should be added to WP:CLOSE. —MartinZ02 (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've replaced the discussion, which MartinZ02 had preemptively archived. MartinZ02, you have far too little experience to be closing discussions, much less ArbCom-enforcement-area discussions. Do not close this again. If you would like to add your suggestion to the bottom of the discussion, feel free. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: Actually it was an RfC, but someone removed the RfC tags (which has now been restored by Sparkie82). In fact, it was probably accidentally removed when MartinZ02 closed the RfC. The reason why I and several other users wanted it to be closed early (which WP:RFC says we can do) is because the RfC was going days without any discussion going on. Furthermore, this whole discussion will be moot after election day so we wanted to resolve it way before then in order to prevent edit wars and in part so readers in 2020 would have a consensus to build off of. The 30 days is almost up so could you or someone here please close the RfC either now or when the 30 days is up? Thanks. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, the discussion section was started as an RfC (the tag was apparently inadvertently removed at some point during the time when the discussion was closed/reopened). I've just restored the RfC tag. The RfC was not optimally constructed or promoted. At the time the RfC was initiated, the question at dispute was whether or not to add write-in candidates to the infobox, not whether or not to remove them (see my first comment at the RfC for details), however, the wording of the RfC question was vague on the that point. The RfC (apparently) was initially only promoted to editors who favored adding write-ins, and all those first comments used the term "Keep" which gave the impression that write-ins were already in the infobox, which they were not. I look forward to continuing to work toward a compromise at the RfC (without the challenged edit(s) in the article until a compromise is reached). Also, several editors have subsequently launched a half-dozen or so separate discussions on the same topic and I'm not sure how to handle that as I've asked editors not to do that before at that talk page. To the admins here, should all those extra discussions be closed and editors referred to the initial RfC? Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think whoever closes the RfC should take into account the other discussions occurring at the talk. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This RfC is not very relevant now since the discussion only encompassed Castle and McMullin; other candidates were not added until just before the initial close of the discussion. There are now several other active proposals that consider the other candidates explicitly. I suggest that this RfC should be closed by a new admin sooner rather than later so that we can move on with more current discussion about the additional candidates. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the closing admin needs to carefully review the discussion, linked previous discussions and now parallel discussions spawned by the vague and premature closure of this RfC. Though I voiced support for closure when several days passed without comment, several comments followed, indicating that the discussion was still active. The closure needs to resolve a clear objective standard for inclusion that applies to all candidates in any election cycle. This is the opportunity to set a fair criteria that will carry over to next election cycle. Bcharles (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The overall problem is that nearly all the comments in this RfC were made when only Castle and McMullin were in contention, which makes it inadequate to resolve the issues with the other candidates that arose later. There are about five newer discussions about what to do about them, which all depend on the outcome of this one. Honestly, I think the version of the infobox on the page right now has a fair amount of support as a compromise. Any long-term solution will require a new RfC crafted for the issues discussed after this RfC was initially closed, which is why I suggest having a proper close to this RfC promptly. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The RfC officially expired as far as the bot is concerned. Could one of the admins please close the RfC and assess consensus in the RfC as well as sections throughout the talk page..!? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Could someone look at PogingJuan's recent edits?

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

---

PogingJuan (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly posting messages on my talk page, and pinging me on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte and on his own talk page, and directly addressing me in article edit summaries, ironically accusing me of "harassment", "bullying" and so on.

It was annoying at first, but now it's starting to look threatening. It apparently got worse after I twice removed an out-of-place citation he kept trying to add to the article.[128][129][130] He doesn't seem to understand why it was inappropriate. These two are particularly worrying. I would give more diffs, but literally every single edit he's made in the past two weeks has been problematic.

I came across the problem because of a recently-archived ANI thread he started that was similarly questionable, and would have likely ended in a WP:BOOMERANG if he didn't filibuster it.

Could someone look at this?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Speaking as an editor, I can see why you reverted the two sources out, as they weren't related to what they were supposedly citing. It would be interesting to hear why why PogingJuan (talk · contribs) thinks removing them was so egregious as to template you multiple times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: With humility, I've discussed it clearly to User:Hijiri88, but seems he didn't understand or even listen my side on including the sentence on the article (I've added a citation, supporting it), that was not clearly sourced at first. I think, it's because he thinks that I hate him on siding with User:Signedzzz (I have actually looked it as lawyering as Hijiri88 keeps on explaining while Signedzzz do not), whom I and User:RioHondo have problems about the allegations of death threat and NPOV edits of Signedzzz, during the past ANI discussion, Hijiri88 have provided on the OP. I've also sent you a message on your talk page last October 20 (UTC) to request you an insight. Back to the Galing Pook award inclusion now, you may refer to this link. There I have resided my explanation on how that sentence must be included on the article, that then-mayor Duterte also became a key to gender mainstreaming in Davao City and must be credited too. But this Hijiri88 insists that I am reverting his edit because I don't like it and he'll request me to be blocked 1. He did even accuse me of having a political agenda (apparently a WP:CoI) while I haven't any 2. I see hypocrisy there, because Signedzzz, whom he has been lawyering on the unclosed ANI discussion, don't remind him about the obvious WP:CoI as RioHondo have proven. ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Did the above answer your question? Can you tell me what the above post (or any of the "clear" "discussion" on the talk page) has to do with ASEAN or the environment? Because I can't figure it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston is taking the lead and I agree with his cautious approach here. That doesn't mean blocks aren't coming, it means he (and I) hope blocks aren't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have fully protected Rodrigo Duterte five days per a request at WP:RFPP. In my opinion, recent edits by several people have been less than optimal. This is a good moment to try to have a calm discussion on the article talk page and get agreement on the things being disputed. Any changes that have consensus can be made during the protection by using the {{Edit fully protected}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: "content dispute and edit-warring"? The closest thing to edit-warring has been PogingJuan's repeated attempts to reinsert a source that has nothing to do with the article content, and that is not a content dispute because it has ... nothing to do with article content. I actually don't give a damn about the article content -- all I know is that at present it looks like crap and is very poorly sourced. Shit. Didn't realize that there actually was a content dispute and edit-war that overshadowed my problem immediately afterward and immediately before your RFPP post. Just looking at what you wrote on RFPP, it looked like you were talking about PogingJuan and me. Sorry for the confusion.

@EdJohnston: This is not about the Duterte page, and there isn't even a content dispute -- I reported PogingJuan because of his user conduct issues. Telling me that I should discuss "the things being disputed" with PogingJuan is telling me I should endure more harassment and nonsense non sequiturs. I honestly have no idea what things are being disputed. Sorry. Just found out what you were referring to. VanHalen09 and Signedzzz appear to be engaged in an unrelated content dispute and edit war. This has nothing to do with my problem with PogingJuan's constant attacks, attempts to intimidate, templating the regulars, and refusal to listen when I explain to him that inserting random citations with nothing to do with article content is inappropriate. Before I noticed the subsequent bona fide edit war, it also looked like "less than optimal" was referring to my removal of blog-like citations, since they were the only recent edits of substance that I was aware of. Again, apologies for the misunderstanding.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC) (Edited 21:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC))

Yes, presumably this is about VanHalen09 removing a cited quote claiming that it is not mentioned in the source. After two reverts he admitted that it was in fact in the source and apologised. Dispute over. Then he insisted on moving the quote - about Duterte's personal life - out of the personal life section, and into the "Controversies and criticism" section. I reverted, and asked him to please not move stuff out of the relevant section and into the trivia section. He claimed he wasn't doing that, and did it again anyway. At which point I left him to it. The page block came later on, and makes no sense whatsoever in terms of article content, but certainly shut down this discussion very effectively. zzz (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, PogingJuan is one of the people who forms part of the war. Since you included diffs of edits at Rodrigo Duterte in your complaint, I assume that my protecting that article is a relevant step. At present there is no problem that should keep everyone from joining in discussions at Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. If people can't engage there without personal attacks then admin action might be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have spent the last several weeks trying to discuss with him. Look at the 4000+ word ANI thread that consists primarily of him trying to convince me that the problem was one-sided POV-pushing by Signedzzz. He claimed there were problems with the article, so I stepped in and started trying to fix them. I immediately found. The problems that none of PogingJuan's talk page comments make any sense or properly address the problems (look at his post in this thread), and PogingJuan is extremely aggressive, have nothing to do with article content. I conceded that "Davao city received X award" could stay for the time being and the source that directly supported it could stay as well, but when I tried to remove the other citation that had nothing to do with it, he reverted me twice, and then he started trying to threaten me for "harassing" him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Consider opening a WP:Request for comment about the Davao City issue at Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. It would be easier for admins to decide who to sanction if we could see at least some people trying to go through the proper steps of WP:Dispute resolution. You made reference to a 4000-word thread here in Archive936 but that was so confusing it's unlikely it could have led to any action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

RFCU was abandoned some years ago. If I have a problem with a user repeatedly posting threatening messages on my talk page, [131][132][133] accusing me of "personal attacks" and "harassment" for removing an out-of-place citation in an article,[134][135], accusing me of "biting" a "newcomer" by reverting a disruptive edit he made and explaining to him how it was disruptive (after he had already threatened me),[136] refactoring and decontextualizing my messages on his talk page,[137] pinging me on his talk page before immediately removing the entire thread so I get a notification that he posted an attack against me but am unable to respond,[138][139][140] refusing to look at the content of my edit or even read the edit summary before reverting me,[141] referring to me diminutively as "bro" and insinuating that I lack common sense,[142] and generally not making any sense in their comments, then ANI is where I am supposed to go to request some more eyes on the problem, no? Whether "Davao City" is synonymous with "Rodrigo Duterte" is irrelevant to these problems, and opening an RFC to deal with it would not solve these problems. I'm all for not biting the newcomers, but when a newcomer is this litigious and aggressive, and after five months and several ANI, ANEW and doesn't seem to understand how to engage in civil discussion, then we should be protecting the experienced editors who don't have the time or energy to come up with creative solutions to getting themselves bitten by aggressive newcomers. I did not come here to request that PogingJuan be blocked -- I would be content with a mentoring solution similar to the TheStrayDog issue that was presented here a few weeks back. But I don't want to do the mentoring myself as (among other reasons) it doesn't look like PogingJuan would be amenable to me being his mentor anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Update Apparently PogingJuan is going to pull away from the Duterte article and will reflect on his editing. This is hopefully the end of the issue, and even if it is not I will hopefully not have to be the one to deal with it next time. I find it concerning, though, that even in saying that he realized he was wrong on the article substance he failed to recognize that the bigger problem was his repeatedly inserting of a citation that had nothing to do with the aticle substance. This means that he still doesn't get why this was wrong, and is therefore liable to do it again somewhere else. I don't mind this thread being closed now, since PogingJuan has apparently agreed to stop harassing and threatening me personally, but I still think some mentoring or other oversight would be a good idea going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If I am right, the issue here is about the citation of Galing Pook award that barely names Duterte and therefore inappropriate to include it on the article, isn't it? I have recognized that already, that it was really inappropriate as Duterte was not the recipient, though it was awarded on Davao City under Duterte admin. My explanation on Hijiri88's talk page was based on the same Galing Pook citation, stating "doing good governance is not only about the governors and mayors, but the participation of the people, especially the women" so meaning, the award was not only attributed on Duterte but also his constituents and therefore, it was really inappropriate to include the Galing Pook citation on Duterte article, and so I agree that it may be placed on maybe Government of Davao City or Davao City. And yes, as I said to Hijiri88, I will get rid myself on editing Duterte article temporarily and instead focus on other articles and creating articles for the upcoming Wikipedia Asian Month 2016. I am also really hoping that the problems regarding proper citations and neutrality on Rodrigo Duterte article will be solved. Regards. ~Manila's PogingJuan 18:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No. As I have stated numerous times, it's about the citation attached to the Galing Pook award that doesn't mention Duterte or the Galing Pook award at all. It's the one you kept edit-warring over after my concession that the actual statement about the Galing Pook award and its source could stay in the article pending consensus to remove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Ah that one! The ASEAN Cooperation on Environment source?. Oh my God, so, that is the real problem after all? I'm so stupid that I haven't looked onto your edit. I thought you have reverted it all. And that's why you have said PogingJuan, if you blankly revert me again because you didn't like PART of my edit, I will request that you be blocked per WP:CIR. I really thought you have reverted it all, just because you don't like my edit, due to our opposing views on recently-archived ANI thread. I haven't even thought that you have conceded the sentence, and for that stupidity of mine, I'm really sorry. ~Manila's PogingJuan 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I have just inserted that ASEAN Cooperation on Environment source, because it states in the citation under Awards & Recognitions the The Gender Mainstreaming Program of the Davao City Government chosen as one of the Top 10 Most Outstanding Programs in the Galing Pook Awards in 2004. You may look this screenshot. You may also look it manually at the website (if you're using Windows, you can use CTRL+F). Meaning, I have included that citation as a support citation only. Now, if that is not really necessary, we may not include that citation. Once again, I'm sorry for me barking up the wrong tree. Still, I'm not changing my stance that I will temporarily get rid of editing Duterte article, as it have affected my editing routine. ~Manila's PogingJuan 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to push it, but you're not allowed to PrtScrn a copyrighted website and post the image on Commons just to make a point. And that is definitely not an ideal source -- even if it does say "The Gender Mainstreaming Program of the Davao City Government chosen as one of the Top 10 Most Outstanding Programs in the Galing Pook Awards in 2004". That actually isn't even the same thing as your text's "Davao City won the Galing Pook award for "gender-responsive" governance in 2004" -- it appears to contradict it. If you are seriously making this kind of edit on a regular basis, and you can't understand why it's inappropriate, the project would probably be better off without you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri, that last comment seems excessive and non-constructive. PogingJuan seems to be making some substantial concessions here and expressing genuine regret regarding where the source of the misunderstandings between you lay. You may wish to to consider that your own learning curve on this project has been especially steep and marked by controversial behaviour; there is not a single other editor that I have noticed who has been more regularly involved as a party to more combined disputes brought before ANI and ArbCom in the last year and a half, but we didn't write you off. I agree with your assessment of some of the issues you have highlighted in your last couple of posts here, but I don't think "we're probably better off without you" is in any way helpful or illustrative of the matters needing adressing, either for PongingJuan or for anyone reviewing the issues here. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

There were misunderstandings, but there were also unambiguous threats and severe disruption to the article space, with not a lot of worthwhile content creation to counterbalance it. I agree the end of my last comment was harsh, but it was my honest opinion (based on evidence), and was clearly not a threat (I would have opened a subthread if that was my intent). If you want to keep an eye on PogingJuan's edits going forward to make sure no more copyvios, edit-wars, coatracking, BLP-violations, threats of off-wiki violence, etc. take place, be my guest. I have better things to do with my time, and as long as PogingJuan doesn't get in my way I don't see any need to pursue any of the above further. But if you are not planning on working to solve the problem, then you should not criticize me for simply stating that there is a problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Very obviously, I was not criticizing you for "stating that there is a problem", nor for using this space to address those issues--nor even to seek a specific sanction or community response, if you chose to do that. Unambiguously, I was criticizing one specific comment that was borderline incivil and certainly non-constructive and unhelpful. And I don't, in any sense, have to take responsibility for reforming PogingJuan's behaviour if I want to comment on where I think your tone and approach to discussion is inappropriate. That's the very definition of a false choice, and no policy or principle of community consensus requires me to resolve this entire dispute between you two before I can narrowly address one problematic comment.

If PongingJuan is unambiguously displaying all of those behaviours that you list, then those are certainly issues that need addressing (specially threats of off-wiki violence if those have genuinely occurred--that's a bright line violation). But I'm familiar enough with your approach to the multiple running feuds that have been dragged here time again that I'm a little skeptical that this is as one-sided as you present--and your "I'll let him off here, so long as he stays out of my way" comment magnifies those concerns. Again, you're perfectly within your rights (and indeed, encouraged) to utilize the process here to address problematic behaviour in another editor. But that does not in any sense give you carte blanche to say whatever you want--please keep your comments in the vein of those observations which may be useful in resolving issues, and stay away from providing your general assessment of the character or value of another contributor. I honestly don't understand why you find that request controversial or surprising, or why you think I need to take over resolving the issues of an ANI thread you started before you are expected to comport with our community standards for civil and productive discussion. Keeping your comments focused on the specific issues at hand (and away from blanket judgements/insults) is not mutually exclusive with restraining disruptive editing in another party. Indeed, it actually makes that process a lot simpler. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? What "multiple running feuds"? You are familiar with "my approach"? The only feud that I have "dragged" here in the past six months was with a South Korean nationalist who kept accusing me of being a North Korean spy because I wanted Wikipedia's romanization of Korean to match the majority of English-language reliable sources (or something). If you thought said editor was being harassed by me, then you should have commented in one of those threads. In this case, PogingJuan was the one who brought his dispute with another editor (he had made a veiled threat about people off-wiki seeing the user's edits about death squads and was edit-warring to keep the threat in) to ANI, which is where I saw it, and I commented -- I was immediately met with several weeks' worth of bogus accusations, bullshit sourcing, and the rest. You clearly have not read the above discussion and all the evidence I presented if you didn't get this.

And yes, you do have an obligation to actually look through the evidence presented and come up with a reasonable explanation/solution before casting aspersions against other editors. I said what I did, and I provided evidence for it. If you disagree with the evidence, you should try to refute it. Attacking me for my "tone" is inappropriate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You're still missing my point here, Hijiri--you have a separate obligation to avoid WP:Personal attacks and other inflammatory comments, regardless of whatever disruptive behaviour you allege the other party to have engaged in--or indeed, regardless of whatever disruptive behaviour you have proven they engaged in. Again, I don't know why you are regarding this as a confusing or surprising principle, but let me put it in the most plain terms I can, an idiom that most any native English speaker becomes familiar with early in life: "two wrongs do not make a right". You can be completely correct in every assessment you make about his conduct and you are still not allowed to make just any comment you'd like. I went out of my way from the start here to make it clear to you that I had looked at the circumstances and that I agreed with numerous of your assessments, but that I viewed that one particular comment to be excessive and non-constructive. Regarding that one narrow assessment, it's irrelevant to me whether or not he is ultimately the major disruptive party here or not. If he is, then may you have every success in addressing his behaviour. But please, per WP:NPA, do it by keeping your comments focused on the issues at hand, and not by making general assessments of his worth, thrown in to register your generally low opinion of him. Making those sorts of comments does absolutely nothing to clarify or address the substantive issues, but rather only serves to inflame situations like this. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you think pointing out, with evidence, that another user has a competence issue meaning that most of their edits are bad and even those that aren't still need to be scrutinized to make sure they aren't, and that this is more trouble for the rest of the community than it is worth, is a "personal attack", then I suggest you re-read WP:WIAPA. There are probably hundreds of editors who appeared to be editing in good faith but constantly made serious mistakes because they didn't know how to properly read sources (etc.) and were blocked because no one wanted to teach them the ins and outs, show them the world map, and so on. If you are not willing to do that, then you can't criticize me for not being willing to do that, and if you can't criticize me for not being willing to do that, then you can't criticize me for speculating that the alternative solution of blocking him until he can demonstrate himself that he can behave responsibly might be best. Speculating on that is not a "personal attack", even if the speculation is incorrect. You have admitted that you have not looked at any of the evidence (you apparently haven't even read PogingJuan's comments in this thread), so you have no idea even whether I am right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Holy mother of WP:IDHT. Fine Hijiri, have it your way. I can't make you acknowledge the point I am trying to emphasize here, not if you are determined to keep avoiding it by suggesting I just don't get the situation, even though I've told you that I -have- looked into the circumstances (and have done so in literally every post I've made in this thread, from the first to the most recent). Since I can't convince you to see the issues with that kind of comment and attitude, continue to treat other contributors you are in conflict with in this fashion, if they refuse to "stay out of your way"-- and then take umbrage any time any uninvolved party here tries to point out to you that civility between you and your "opposition" is a two-way street.

Just bear in mind that a) you're interactions with other editors have been the subject of ANI threads on numerous occasions, leading to more than a few warnings and sanctions, including at least one IBAN that I can recall, b) you were most recently sanctioned by ArbCom, for a contest of wills not altogether dissimilar from this one, in that it involved another editor who you regarded as generally useless to the project, and c) you've been blocked numerous times for a battleground mentality and incivility/PA issues. So you can continue to respond to every single minor criticism you receive here with a staunch and absolutist defense (and always believe that the other party just hasn't looked into the issue well enough to now that you're right), but my genuine advice to you is that maybe you are overdue to pause and question whether some of this advice on how to deal with conflict on this project might just be useful to you. If you can tolerate, for a moment, the notion that there might be room for improvement somewhere in your approach. That's the last of what I have to say on this matter, you can take it or leave it as you wish. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:, @Hijiri88: "he had made a veiled threat about people off-wiki seeing the user's edits about death squads and was edit-warring to keep the threat in" Excuse me, this line is getting on my nerves, seriously! That was the point-of-view of User:Signedzzz on our recently-archived ANI thread, but I think, you have missed the point to acknowledge my point-of-view that 'death threatening' Signedzzz was not my intention, when he have said that was my intention. I have already said that 'that was just a reminder that his actions on Wikipedia are recorded on the page history and he may be blocked due to his mass deletion of sourced articles cited by User:RioHondo. You know what? That is the reason why I have blamed you of lawyering Signedzzz. Remember that I may have stopped temporarily editing on Duterte article (due to it affects my editing routine), I may have acknowledged my fault regarding on Galing Pook citation, I may have withdrawn the recently-archived ANI (although I doesn't matter) because I think that will not make Wiki any better as I have posted on your talk page, but my stand will not change that Signedzzz have accused me of death threatening, while I haven't really did that. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Give it a goddamn break, PogingJuan -- you did say that people off-wiki might see the bit about death-squads, and everyone who looked at it who didn't already agree with you on article agreed it looked like a threat. You should have retracted it and clarified that you did not mean it as a threat, but instead you edit-warred to keep it in exactly as you wrote it. This makes it impossible to interpret as a good-faith mistake. Why the hell are you still even here? I thought you said you were going to leave the Duterte issue alone? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That was not about the bit about death squads, but the whole article, and how it was written. I have said too, both people on-wiki and off-wiki, not off-wiki only. I did say that I'm going to leave the Duterte article issue on you, but it doesn't give you the right to defame me on other users (by cherry-picking; like a World War II victor on losers). I, rather, didn't also say that I'm not going defend myself as a user. ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't restrict me on explaining my side, and don't also get one user's point-of-view only. You want me to leave, but you are defaming me using cherry-picking on the archived ANI thread. It's kinda unfair on my side. ~Manila's PogingJuan 15:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, it seems inappropriate for this ANI thread to be continued as we have solved the concerned part of the post, which is Galing Pook citation. I see this ANI thread not an appropriate place for the Duterte article's other citation issues. Remember, as you have said on the archived ANI thread, the right place so that the article be reviewed is BLPN, and not ANI. ~Manila's PogingJuan 15:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "restricting you on explaining your side". I'm asking you to shut up and get over it. You said what you did. I gave my opinion on it. So did several other people. It's finished. It hasn't been live on-wiki for weeks at this point. There's no need to keep talking about it.

it seems inappropriate for this ANI thread to be continued My thoughts exactly. So please stop dragging it out and let it be archived. You are the one who keeps coming back and extending this, not me. Everything I have said since I don't mind this thread being closed now a little over a week ago has been in response to some continuing commentary from you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

History of unsourced and promotional edits

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

---

• Rockspeter60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rockspeter60 (talk · contribs) has culminated a difficult history by persistently re-creating his autobiography here. I'd venture that the user needs guidance, but he's edited here for at least two years and doesn't appear to welcome assistance. 2601:188:1:AEA0:54FE:11E3:7566:4F1F (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Is it Halloween already north of the Mason-Dixon line? Hmm...autobiography...Herman Basudde (1958–1997)... :) Drmies (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No, look in his deleted contributions (or talk page). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes. After I'd opened reports at both AIV and protection noticeboards, BU Rob13, who salted the autobiography, suggested I report here. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
      • He hasn't done anything more since the thread started, and his other contributions look only mildly problematic (and sparse). He has more deleted contributions than live ones, but they still mostly relate to Basudde. Is there any reason to keep this report open? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Editor is now blocked indef by User:Seraphimblade for persistent disruptive editing. (The apparent autobiography at Basaaya Rocks Peter was deleted twice per A7 and is now salted). Suggest that this report can be closed. We can consider an unblock request if one is posted, and if the user offers to follow policy in the future. He did create the article on Herman Basudde which appears notable, though a lot of non-encyclopedic material had to be removed by others. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Tendentious IP

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

---

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

This IP appears to be a Biblical literalist who is here to promote Christian fundamentalism, Biblical literalism and creationism. Consider, for example:

1. [143] citing Russian propaganda site RT and arch conservative periodic The New Atlantis top cast doubt on the view that sexual orientation may be innate;
2. [144] removing the fact that micro- and macro-evolution have both been observed;
3. [145] attributing Newton's development of the idea of physical laws to the Christian doctrine (Newton was not exactly religious, he famously refused to take holy orders, which delayed his matriculation from Cambridge);
4. [146] special pleading;
5. [147], claiming that the idea of genetic drift as a main mechanism of speciation is "hotly debated" among scientists (and note other contributions int hat thread);
6. [148] aggressively promoting highly partisan sources as a means to presenting the James ossuary as legitimate.

I have reviewed a substantial number of this users edits. They are generally tendentious, often rely on partisan and unreliable sources, and his approach in debate is extremely aggressive. In other words, a Warrior for Truth™.

The address has been stable for some time, the disruption started in June (with a block).

I think this user should be subject to a restriction. Ideally no article edits to topics beloved of the Christian right, and possibly some restriction on talk page argufying. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Support anything from topic ban to an indef ban, with emphasis on the latter My last run-in with this user was with them tendentiously asking a series of leading questions and making pointed arguments at RSN with the intention of engineering a consensus to remove any source linked to talkorigins.com. While the IP pointedly refused to answer direct questions about their personal beliefs, their editing history and arguments made it clear that they were a creationist, pushing a creationist POV. This was made explicitly clear when I provided four highly reputable sources for the claim that 'evolution is a fact' off the cuff and their response was to crow about my 'inability' to provide sources to back up the claim. I have a lot of patience with people, though I may come off as snappy at times (check my history with this IP if you don't believe me). But there is no way in hell I see a place on WP for anyone pushing an agenda to the point of lying directly to another editor about what that very editor had said, in immediate response to the words being discussed. I mean, it blows my mind that anyone could be so self delusional, to the point where WP:AGF has me torn between the two extremes of Poe's law. Is it good faith to assume they knew how fundamentally ignorant and distorted that response was, and were trolling? Or is it good faith to assume they were arguing earnestly, but from a fundamentally ignorant and distorted perspective? I honestly don't know. If an editor is making AGF difficult, that's my problem. But when an editor makes it downright confusing? I'm sorry, but that's on them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "only a theory" talking point. That's creationism 101, for sure. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In the context, it wasn't so much the "only a theory" claim, but rather a claim that even scientists agree that it's never been verified. And this was with the evidence that scientists have verified it literally having been staring them in the face, in bright blue, underlined links with expository context. Which you might recognize as being a bit further down the rabbit hole than your average creationist. In all, I get the impression that this user might well be a 'professional' creationist, in the sense of being an active member of the Discovery Institute or some other pseudo-scientific, subversive creation 'science' group. Either way, there's clearly a deliberate attempt to push their POV, and I think my diffs evince a strong CIR issue, as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with both Guy and Mjolnir. But I don't know exactly what to do about it -- indef-blocks are not possible with IPs, so how a "ban" would be enforceable is a question that might need discussion. Is the IP blocked for three months and any further abuse from this or another IP who appears to be the same person met with another three-month block? It's minor point, but I don't see the CIR issue. The user is WP:NOTHERE, and engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence to attribute this to a lack of competence -- it all looks pretty deliberate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A topic ban on an IP can be enforced through WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: but I don't see the CIR issue... I was referring to the fact that this user apparently felt either that he could convince me I hadn't actually just put the evidence up, or that they could convince another editor that the links above his comment didn't exist by simply ignoring them and responding as if they weren't there. I've met many intelligent people, and this editor is one of them. But people (intelligent or otherwise) who demonstrate such a fundamental disconnect from the normal human experience usually run into major problems when they actually attempt to work with others. I've seen it before on WP: a user with a strong POV ends up at AE or here, and gets hit with warnings or sanctions that actually get through to them. So they try to start working with others, only to hit a deadlock at the very first disagreement because they can't understand what is being communicated to them. They quite literally cannot understand how anyone could possibly disagree with them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I see it now. This user is either deliberately feigning idiocy in order to get a rise out of his opponents or is genuinely incompetent. How anyone could read my comment as wanting confirmation that historians don't accept the "Christ myth theory" is baffling. Additionally, "If someone with zero knowledge on Jesus historicity" implies that, yes, this user is interpreting the sentence in question as saying that the ossuary is evidence that Jesus is the Son of God, or some nonsense like that. Support indef ban (TBAN, or SBAN, or one-way IBAN with everyone who wants it thus allowing anyone to revert this IP's edits with impugnity, I don't even care). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• [149] False claims about source wording. There's more to it than that, but I'm not going to get into it until some uninvolved editors start here. The thread is a bit too much of an echo chamber at the moment, with three editors who've all had much the same interactions with this editor being the only voices. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's unfortunate to see this IP being considered as an incident here. A neutral editor who carefully research the accusations would be able to see that the accusations are baseless and they stem from the editors' only surface-level of knowledge on the subjects being discussed. Here are some of such examples:

• JzG accuses: [150], claiming that the idea of genetic drift as a main mechanism of speciation is "hotly debated" among scientists
  • False. Follow the link and you will see the discussion was about REDUCTIONISM of macro-evolution to micro-evolution. It was NOT about "genetic drift as a main mechanism of speciation" as JzG falsely accuses. This isn't the first time that JzG either intentionally used a straw man fallacy or he genuinely failed to comprehend what has been said.[151]
  • Regarding reductionism of macro-evolution, the statement was supported with a citation to reputable publication which states:

    "Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution."

  • In fact, even a pro-evolution website states:

    "The reductive relation between microevolution and macroevolution is hotly debated."

  • JzG further reveals his lack of knowledge even in his false accusation with "genetic drift as a main mechanism of speciation". Unbeknownst to him, genetic drift in relationship with speciation IS also a topic that scientists continue to debate. As the Wiki page on speciation states:

    "Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion."

• JzG accuses: [152] attributing Newton's development of the idea of physical laws to the Christian doctrine (Newton was not exactly religious, he famously refused to take holy orders, which delayed his matriculation from Cambridge);
  • JzG should check the cited sources before making an accusation. The cited New York Times source states:

    "This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way."

    The other cited source states:

    "What is often less appreciated, however, is that part of the novelty of the Newton's achievment lay in his conviction that there were laws of nature there in the first place, awaiting discovery. ... As was the case for laws of nature, the idea that mathematical relations were real had a theological justification. Individuals such as Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes and Isaac Newton were convinced that mathematical truths were not the products of human minds, but of the divine mind. God was the source of mathematical relations that were evident in the new laws of the universe. Like the Bible, the "book of nature" had also been written by God and, as Galileo was to insist, this book was "written in the language of mathematics." ... Yet, many of the leading figures in the scientific revolution imagined themselves to be champions of a science that was more compatible with Christianity than the medieval ideas about the natural world that they replaced."

  • JzG puts up another straw man fallacy by saying, "Newton was not exactly religious". I have never said that Newton was religious.
  • JzG further shows his lack of logic by stating, "Newton was not exactly religious, he famously refused to take holy orders". He does not understand that a refusal of holy orders does not automatically lessen someone's religious conviction.
  • Finally, even if Newton were not religious, it still does not change the fact that Newton first got the idea of physical laws from the Christian doctrine.
• JzG accuses: [153] aggressively promoting highly partisan sources as a means to presenting the James ossuary as legitimate.
  • In the talk, JzG's accusation against the sources has been debunked. JzG has tendency to never provide any evidence for his claims.[154] On the other hand, many evidences have been cited to him, yet he refuses to accept.
• MjolnirPants accuses: "[155] False claims about source wording."
  • The talk shows that it is MjolnirPants himself who makes a false claim because the wording, "Isaac Newton first got the idea ...", clearly exists on the cited New York Times source. (We have come to a compromise on this issue, and it looks like it was a case of simple misunderstanding.)
• MjolnirPants accuses: "This was made explicitly clear when I provided four highly reputable sources for the claim that 'evolution is a fact' off the cuff and their response was to crow about my 'inability' to provide sources to back up the claim."
  • MjolnirPants reveals his disgust against creationism. He should be reminded of WP:NDP.
  • MjolnirPants fails to comprehend what was being stated, or it's a straw man fallacy. The statement which he tried to rebut was: "I can cite you a reputable source that clearly states that there exists a consensus on climate change, but I have never seen a consensus on evolution being a fact -- though I see many scientists supporting evolution as being a theory, and disagreeing on it being a fact." The keyword is CONSENSUS. None of his sources mentions anything about there existing the consensus (check them yourself). Thus, it is true that MjolnirPants could not provide a single source to back up his claim.
  • MjolnirPants says, "I provided four highly reputable sources for the claim that 'evolution is a fact'". One of his sources was National Center for Science Education. And he had been reminded of the irony that he was trying to rebut the very reputable source that states:

    "Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."
    The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts."

  • It should be pointed out that MjolnirPants had been presented with the publication by Kirk_J._Fitzhugh who states:

    "‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations. Regardless of one’s certainty as to the utility of a theory to provide understanding, it would be epistemically incorrect to assert any theory as also being a fact. ... An emphasis on associating ‘evolution’ with ‘fact’ presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty. Acknowledging that the statement, ‘evolution is a fact’, is an incorrect assertion has the benefit of focusing our attention back on the goal of science"

    But, his disparaged Dr. Fitzhugh's paper by saying, "It's a jumbled mess of conflated jargon and semantics. It's pure pedantry." He further goes to claim that he was "more qualified" than Dr. Fitzhugh to discuss the subject and "Fitzhugh's scientific training actually works against him".[156]
    If MjolnirPants thinks he knows better than someone like Dr. Fitzhugh who is a prominent scientist who specializes on the philosophical foundations of evolutionary theory, it is no wonder that he believes a lowly anonymous IP who disagrees with him is wrong. He does not accept that there may be other people (no matter how qualified they are) who see things differently than his point of view.

So the question is: how many accusations made by the editors also apply to the editors themselves? 69.75.54.130 (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating the problem. I don't think anyone can fail to be aware that scientifically speaking evolution is accepted as fact, and is a theory in name only due to unfalsifiability. There are no scientific findings inconsistent with current understanding of evolution. You are engaging in the classic creationist bait and switch between scientific and lay definitions of the words fact and theory. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it your stance then that the theory of evolution should be called a theory in name only because the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable? And BTW, Dr. Fitzhugh is not a creationist. National Center for Science Education is not an organization for creationism either. Please understand that there are scientists who oppose to the theory of evolution being called fact on philosophical ground that "In science, theories never become facts." A National Science Teachers Association publication was another source that I had cited, which states:

"I have heard too many scientists claim that evolution is a fact, often in retort to the claim that it is just a theory. Evolution isn’t a fact."

69.75.54.130 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've asked a few uninvolved admins to take a look. I think it's pretty obvious there's a major problem here that can't be resolved with discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked. I don't think there's a lot of use in topic bans for IPs. I've blocked for a month for disruptive editing. Bishonen | talk 05:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

Bish, is it just me or have you become the go-to admin for blocking Christian fundamentalist IP trolls? :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Not especially those, I think I have more just become Thor's hammer in general. You may think that's what you are, Mr Mjölnir, but it's really me. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

Ahh, you've missed the latter part of my handle, I'm afraid. It's actually a three-part joke. Firstly, it refers to hammer pants, a particularly baggy pair of pants I was fond of in the early nineties. Second, it refers to my interest in Norse mythology, a subject I was quite willing to discuss at great length with anyone who gave me an excuse at the time.

So I'm not Mjölnr. I'm MjolnirPants. :D MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was quicker and more decisive than I expected. Thanks! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I've cleverly winkled out an explanation of one of the more baffling usernames in this place. Perhaps this is ready to be closed now? Bishonen | talk 16:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

Indeed it is. I've taken the liberty. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This IP has been wasting our time for some time now as seen here. This IP is clearly here to share his narrow-minded views on wikipedia. I would advise us not to feed him, as he is clearly relentless. FixCop (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Profile101/TrenSpark - Stiffer rangeblock needed, abusing other editors

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

---

Known puppet Profile101 is leaving rather violent messages on their new sock's talk page, mainly aimed at Anna Frodesiak, he is also (still) claiming to be an admin and "if we dont unblock him, he will ban all of us"... Dear oh dear... Nordic Nightfury 12:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

B!SZ revoked talk page access. You might contact a CU for a range block, but sometimes the only thing you can do is request page protection for their favorite targets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:RBI is probably best. I visit Singapore occasionally, though it's been a few years - perhaps I should invite him for a Wikipedia social next time I'm there ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm well familiar with Profile101. The ranges he has access to are unfortunately far to big to block. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC).

Would it be worth requesting a community site ban for Profile101? Or is he de-facto banned, in which case, the ban template can go on his original user page. Class455 (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The insult he hurled at Nordic Nightfury, calling him a "fucky, disgusting Belly Button", gave me my first laugh of the day. (I'm rather fond of belly buttons myself.) Deor (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

and the insult he hurled at me when he reverted my edit "You delete that section again, i'll throw you in fuck language" made me laugh my fucking head off (sorry for dropping the "F bomb"). How exactly can this person physically throw me in a four lettered word. His insults are meaningless and woudn't hurt even a baby if I'm being brutally honest. Class455 (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem much point in putting any particular template on his user page; that wouldn't stop him. I'd advise revert, block, ignore. He's very fond of attention, and even created an ANI complaint about himself once. Deor, I agree he's not skilled with the rhetoric, and it would be surprising if anybody's feelings were actually hurt by his attempts at hardhitting invective. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC).
• I agree with DENY proponents. Even though that hasn't worked well so far, it seems the sensible choice, especially considering his nature. I shouldn't have even posted at his talk. And do not worry about his posts offending me. Far, far from it, really far, as far as you can get. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• I'd agree with DENY too then. But if there was a sock attacking pages, and no admins who knew about the case were about, do we report to AIV or SPI? Class455 (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Class455: If the socking isn't immediately obvious or well-known, SPI is always a good choice. GAB^gab 02:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• A suggestion to admins who deal with this one if you recognize who it is - block with talk page access revoked. If he has talk page access, his unblock request is invariably abusive and requires tpa to be revoked anyway, so it will save some time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Haha, Boing!, I should have done that with Profile101 Frodesiak, who blanked this section, and saved myself some trouble. I'll try to remember next time. You can see that the socks are sometimes pretty easy to spot... not always, though. Bishonen | talk 11:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

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

Alleged disruptive contributions in AFD

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

---

Editor USER:J. M. Pearson has made what I believe to be multiple disruptive edits and several personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Gerry and a few other discussions. I would appreciate a review from a non-involved admin.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, this new editor seems to be going out of his way to be as snide as possible right from the get-go. I can't see us putting up with this too much longer. If you look at his most recent comment at the Afd, he rather seems to be trolling us. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• I smell a sock. Not really sure who, but a week old editor getting involved with AfD and being disruptive generally leads me to that conclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
• Interestingly, I see he's done quite a lot of work at a cemetery article both under this account and as an IP. I'm wrong about this just being trolling. For some reason, he's decided this tone makes him seem smart -- or possibly grown up. If he keeps it up, let's just keep up the civility warnings and the situation will resolve itself with a block. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. For some reason my computer didn't load all those when I was looking through his contributions the first time. Struck the sock comment (looked like mostly disruptive AfD behavior to me at the time). Agree here. Civility warnings are the way to go I think. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

He's made another comment at the Afd that he's aware of this discussion and seems to take it as some kind of badge of honour. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

He's also made several comments implying that WP editors are paid, and that one voter on the AfD is a COI editor. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

note more disruptive comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobrisky.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Extraordinarily good vandalism

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

---

Some UNBELIEVABLY excellent vandalism by myself is planned from this IP over the next few days and you are POWERLESS to prevent it. 188.57.55.17 (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours, talk page disabled. However, the IP appears to be on a cell network in Turkey, which does sound like an excellent setup to jump IPs left right and centre and cause lots of vandalism. Is there any previous record of disruption on this range? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As what this admin said before, it might be possible but it could be optional to notify the Wikimedia Foundation to file a complaint of network abuse with Turkcell. There's no need for this kind of childish behavior by anyone. SportsLair (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Or we could just go with WP:DENY. This person obviously wants attention. Let's not give them any. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

LuckyLag360

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

---

LuckyLag360 (talk · contribs) is not here to improve the encyclopedia but to push his personal political agenda.

• I first encountered him when he added a section to the libertarianism article based on a website under his personal control, one that is blatantly unreliable and a couple of others that do not say what he cited them for; I won't repeat the user conduct issues I highlighted at this archived AN/I thread.
• The talk page is quite long but shows LuckyLag360 engaging in assertions of support for his position without evidence and, as a particular gem, archiving an active discussion as soon as a second person disagreed with him.
• Since then, LuckyLag360 got himself blocked for violating 1RR at the US presidential election article despite being well aware of that rule.
• After the block ran out he again edit-warred at another article.
• Yesterday I nominated Center-libertarianism for deletion, an artilcle LuckyLag360 had written and that suffered the same problems as the content I originally encountered in the Libertarianism article. In retaliation LuckyLag360 has started reverting some of my edits [157], partly with obviously false edit summaries and in one case re-adding nonsense. This isn't just pointy, it's revenge.
• It's a kind of harassment he simultaneously accuses me of, without presenting evidence (there is none).
• LuckyLag360 has also added mentions of center-libertarianism to various other articles, never supporting the addition with a reliable source. Note that in the second set of edits he also changes the "states' rights" description away from what the reliable source says.

I could go on with the list of issues with LuckyLag360's conduct on Wikipedia, but I think this suffices to support my original assertion. LuckyLag360 should be blocked indefinitely. Huon (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is more of the harassment, this is the second time you've come to this notice board. Frankly I could care less what you think, Im here to improve political articles. Thats why I edit political articles. I also edit road articles. Pretty simple stuff. I'm tired of Huon harassing my edits hounding me on every article and trying to delete every article I write. He's the one that should be banned. LuckyLag360 (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLag360: Please clarify why this is harassment, and present some of the other "harassment posts" that Huon has made toward you. WikiPancake ^{✉ 📖} 07:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@WikiPancake: I'll do the best I can but Im not a seasoned wikipedia user so I dont know all the tools or how to use them, But the first example is when he first came to the admin notice board less than a month ago complaining about me and wanting me banned. Which ofcourse did not go anywhere for him. But conveniently when the tide turned and he saw he could not get me banned he focused on actually trying to reach a consensus which I applaud him on. But the problem with that first one was on the libertarianism page in which he completely ignored assuming good faith and immediately came to admin notice board as soon as I challenged his reverts of content I added. He's also tried to intimidate me on my talk page by posting edit warnings when he was the one violating 3RR(not sure how to link specific edit history). After losing the consensus on libertarianism I moved on to editing other articles and avoided Huon. Of course this didnt last as he came to Center-libertarianism page in which he nominated for deletion despite the fact that admins had already vetted the article and the sources where accepted. I responded rather quickly to his nomination for deletion. Instead of actually replying to my rebuttal on the nomination for deletion page he goes here and wants get me banned. It seems every time he doesnt get his way easily he wants to ban me. I have no problem with my edits being question, challenged, reverted, debated, ect. But when people like Huon ignore assuming good faith, constantly stalk pages you edit, revert changes without explanation and nominate pages for deletion out of the blue and than report you when you reply to the nomination for deletion it gets annoying and I consider harassment. I'd also love to see this conspiracy Huon has come up with about some sort of political agenda I have.

As for the abundant accusations I didn't address (was busy at the time) I'll go through these one by one:

• 1. Agreed, we debated the sources and eventually more wikipedian people sided with his argument and the edit has not been changed since. (How this is a reason for ban is kind of weird)
• 2. As for the Q&A again I dont have the knowledge of tools or whatever may exist to show such things. But I believe at the time to add information into that specific box it had to be approved. Regardless he removed it and I didnt add it back so why this is a problem is beyond me.
• 3. I did not agree with that block as I did not violate that rule but it was a 72 hour block so I didnt really care about getting it repealed.
• 4. Content added was challenged by me, which was added, discussed and resolved in talk page.
• 5. Its not retaliation at all, I fixed several articles I thought needed editing. If you'd like to challenge the specific edits, please go to the talk page of articles where you disagree and explain why and how I am wrong and reach a consensus.
• 6. Since when did adding relevant articles to a see also section require sources? never have I seen a page with a see also section have sources attached to them. That would be interesting but its not the reality. As for the other article I self-reverted adding "Center-Libertarianism" to it and for the states rights vs states powers difference. The difference and language is important as the Liberal Republicans where not neo-confederates, its actually well documented they where anti slavery and anti states rights. What they where for where constitutional powers, specifically state powers delegated to the states by state constitutions. For example my state constitution mandates the state not the federal government handle roads, schools and many other public institutions. States rights on the other hand have been well documented to stand for allowing slavery and other racists policies liberal republicans opposed. And beyond the Liberal Republican revolt it self its extremely well documented classical liberals have always opposed slavery even if its just philosophically.

So hopefully I explained my side properly and I just want huon to stay away from me or act like every other admin I've come across on Wikipedia. Usually they assume good faith. Give some sort of notice or warning before action and also discuss issues on talk pages before reverts, and notice boards. Obviously we all make edit errors and sometimes we disagree on certain things and we end up being wrong but Huon takes it to the next level. I'll be the first to admit I have been wrong on many discussions and edits. That doesnt mean I should be banned for life on wikipedia. Thats insanity, atleast I think. LuckyLag360 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It sounds as though you don't understand your discretionary sanctions block given to you by User:Ks0stm. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLag360: I've reviewed the above and want to cut to one key point - are you genuinely claiming that you did not go through these recent edits by Huon - 1, 2, 3 and 4 - and revert them solely because they were made by him? in each case your reversions restored unsourced or nonsense text to the articles, and I'm struggling with your suggestion that this was done in good faith.-- Euryalus (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Noting this response to the above question. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Mrmattdavis890

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

---

• Mrmattdavis890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent uploader of copyrighted images. Given a "final warning" on his talk page over a month ago. Has never engaged on his talk page. Not sure what to do here, I don't think there is malicious intent but I also don't know how to get through. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed. MER-C 06:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions blanked

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

---

• At 06:01, 6 November 2016‎, User:RMCD bot blanked all the current move discussions off page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The bot readded the content 3 minutes after your post. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the bot also removed all the content from Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requested moves. Maybe @Wbm1058: was doing maintenance? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Debugging. Up in the middle of the night here. Discovered the bot takes an hour off when daylight savings kicks in. wbm1058 (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

IP adding "... years ago" to infoboxes of countless airlines

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

---

171.7.82.233 has been adding "... years ago" to the infobox of countless airline articles. I have explained to him on his user talk page that this would need manually recalculating and editing each year, and also pointed him at the instructions to avoid such wording, in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references. but he has continued. Could an admin please take appropriate action, including a block (until he understands) and a reversion of his edits to date. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have just reverted, for a second time, the"...years ago" line - plus wrong date format -on the United Airlines article. This IP is not listening and a short block should be considered. David J Johnson (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

They or you could have used {{start date and age}} which is easier. It's possible they're just copying the output and pasting it in, which is rather more involved.--Auric talk 12:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

After this one was blocked, the same editor is back as Special:Contributions/171.7.134.182, doing the same sort of thing, such as this edit. Again needs blocking and reversion. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

A block is in order. Please also note that the IP edit summaries are just the name of the article. They are clearly not here to build and encyclopedia.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The IPer has been changing date formats against MOS:DATETIES in at least one article here. IPer has started using the {{Start date and age}} template in a recent edit. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

He's been using {{Start date and age}} in some edits (not just the most recent ones), but hard coding "... years ago" in many others. He knows the right way, so why is he doing it the wrong way? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This IPer has been given a short term block for continuing to do disruptive edits. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing from Hzh: around 170 (almost) consecutive edits in a matter of days

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

---

Hzh has made in a few days around 170 (almost) consecutive edits on the article Marco Polo, making de facto any return to the article as it was before impossible. Please note the previous status-quo had been find after very laborious and long compromises. I need the help of an administrator because I find such way of editing very, very disruptive but I could not find any instruction on the way to proceed in the WP Community Portal. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the complaint is about. It is very easy to restore to its earlier state. Nothing I added is unsourced, in fact I corrected a number of edits that appear to be added not supported by sources, and seem to be entirely the editors' opinion. I think you needed to say more so that I know what it is your are complaining about. If you think there is a problem, I think you should discuss it first before issuing an ANI. Hzh (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Listen, you cannot post 170 consecutive edits without discussing first. This is simply insane. I do not contest all of your edits, but certainly some of them. The thing is that you need to edit at a pace that is consistent with the capability of your fellow editors to discuss. Please return the article to its condition and I will remove the post on the ANI. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Silvio1973, what administrative action are you requesting? I see nothing wrong with Hzh's conduct here—"a string of minor edits rather than a single large one" is an utterly standard method of editing, particularly on high-traffic pages like this where there's a risk of edit conflicts doing it as a single large edit—and we're not going to intervene in a content dispute unless you can provide evidence of any kind of inappropriate behaviour. ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, if posting 170 consecutive edits is normal for you I will adapt. I don't think it is normal, but I will comply. Consider this ANI closed and all you accept my excuses to bother you all. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh, it's not a big problem, just that AN/I is not for this sort of thing. AN/I is for issues which need administrator action. This is something the two of you can work out without admin intervention. I've linked all of Hzh's edits into a single diff, hope it's useful. Good luck and carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Silvio, what? there is no such rule anywhere on Wikipedia and it is not insanity to have 170 consecutive edits from 15th October to 7th November. Second, if you've made no attempt to discuss the edits with the user, get off of AN/I as this is not the place to contest content disputes. ANI is a final resort to behavioural problems, not the very first for content disputes. Take it to the talk page and discuss it with Hzh, any changes that the editor has made that you disagree with can be reverted. 170 edits will take a while to go through admittedly and so I expect it'll take several days for you to get through everything. Here's a compilation of all of Hzh's edits over the course of the last three weeks. It doesn't look like a complete overhaul but there is definitely a lot to go through. Work out the content between yourselves first, if you have problems try WP:DRN. If problems persist then consider AN/I. Till then, get cracking. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already expressed my excuses but dear fellow editors I think you are wrong. The article Marco Polo has been built with consensus reached sometime requesting formal mediation for very minor modifications. Considering the history of the article a grain of salt should be put before posting 170 consecutive edits. This is the best way to move other editors away, indeed it's what I will do. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately even an FA article can be subject to vast revisions in the matter of days. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. What consensus may have existed one day will be meaningless the next - especially the case for current events. I've overhauled more than one article without asking for permission - that's because permission is not required. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Sneaky vandal

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

---

177.239.8.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a hoaxer, adding phony info about video games, for example adding that a Playstation port of a game is cancelled, despite the reception section confirming this to not be the case. Some examples here and here. Eik Corell (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted what's left of their edits, and am giving them a final warning for unsourced changes. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

BMEBANGLADESH

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

---

The user has been blocked for spamming, but is now spamming their talk page. Can a friendly admin block talk-page access? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Report harassment/personal attack

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

---

I would like to report @Karst: for personally attacking me in the form of false accusations. I take this accusation as harassment and an attempt to discourage me from editing and/or to put me down. Just because I like editing on electronic dance music-related articles and this user has took this as a reason to report me as a sockpuppet. On the sockpuppet investigation page, the header says something like "Accusing someone without evidence is personal attack" so I would like this user be taken action against for personally attacking me (if justice is enforced on this website). This is the link to the sockpuppet investigations page. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

References

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

disruptive editor

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

---

At Italianization editor User:Silvio1973 showed up and began deleting sourced content. I reverted him. So he deleted even more with the reasoning that the books given as source are offline, ergo he can't check them, ergo he can delete all this content. I reverted him and found all the books and added proper references, which we would not accept as these books (by history professors and published by Cambridge Univerity Press) are offline, and I should go and prove to him that these books truly say what is in the section. He then began with disruptive cite-tagging.
So I found an online source: namely the Italian Defence Staff's Commission of Military History, which published an official year-by-year account of Italy's involvement in the war, which he dismissed again, only to declare then, that we can't use this source as it is just one, and that's not enough... ignoring the five books. He then went on to claim that the source is in Italian, so we can't use it, then he started a Third opinion, then he said it's WP:UNDUE to inculde the Ionian Islands in the article, now he is again cite tagging, deleting conent (and lying about the Defence Staff source, which clearly says: 1x newspaper in Italian, and the official bulletin by the occupation authorities in Greek/Italian).
User:Silvio1973 has not added 1 (not one) line to improve the article, but tries to disrupt the work of other editors. Case in point: today he filed a spurious ANI, because another editor added 10k of new sourced content.
Instead of continuing on my article series about the end of the Cold War (i.e. this October I created these articles among others: Division Daguet, Structure of the Canadian Armed Forces in 1989, Structure of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1989) I had to spend the last 2 days trying to satisfy the ever changing, disruptive, bad faith demands of this user. This is a clear case of an editor, who does not contribute, but distracts, annoys, discourages, exasperates and destroys. I am not gonna indulge him anymore. If anyone else wants to try and reason, I am for "revert on sight" and ignore. noclador (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Noclador, instead of wasting your precious time posting an ANI, why don't you simply reply to my request and provide the citations supporting the three contested edits so that the entire discussion is put to bed? I requested you already twice [[158]] and [[159]] but you did not reply. Last but not least, I do not contest the facts you posted, but the use of Italian sources which you translate very liberally and, like it or not, misrepresent. BTW, I filed an ANI because an editor has posted 170 consecutives edits on an article without even trying to discuss first on the talk page. The administrators told me that it's fine - although discouraged - to do so, hence I made my public apologies. Everyone can see it, it's just above.Silvio1973 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that this content dispute needs to go through other dispute resolution channels. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

A content dispute is when two editors have different suggestions about content formulation. It is not a content dispute if someone keeps inventing reasons, why he is justified to delete sourced content. I bring content, sources and references, the other editor, will not accept any of it, and keeps throwing up new insanities, as to why he cannot accept the sources. This is not a content dispute, but time wasting. noclador (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to reclose this as the OP raised a legitimate point about my previous closing rational in that I erred in referencing another thread above. But it is still a content dispute and it doesn't belong here. It should be closed again by someone else. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Administrator User:NeilN

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

---

I added a comment regarding the behaviour of the administrator NeilN to an already active discussion. This administrator was rude in response and refuses to acknowledge that anything but their own point of view is valid. Why are administrators on this site allowed to behave in this way unchecked? Who polices the police? The editors WesMouse and PootisHeavy are also continually sarcastic, belittling and abusive to editors who try to enhance pages which they clearly believe they own and are responsible for. This is not why wikipedia was created nor is it being administered in the manner for which it was designed. Using the royal "we" to explain their actions is unacceptable and belittling users with valid concerns is an abuse. Why has no action been taken?72.245.246.219 (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• I smell BS here, but I will give the benefit of the doubt for a bit. Do you have any discussion or edit diffs you can link to? Evidence is generally required at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Because no action needs to be taken. If you go to an admin and they disagree with you, they won't implement your requests. Additionally, evidence in the form of diffs is required. If you want someone to look at the conduct of any editor, bring diffs of their behaviour as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't accounted for the administrator's club. Glad you've all got each other's backs. BS? If it walks like a duck...72.245.246.219 (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ad Orientem and I are not administrators - we're merely experienced editors. Our heads up is serious, diffs are required. Admins don't take accusations on good faith. Hence, our posts. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have requested an administrator to be reviewed. If you are not administrator's and cannot help, then I see no reason for your comments at all.72.245.246.219 (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

... Well suit yourself. Without evidence this thread will be closed with either no action or a boomerang. I've been aware of this dispute for the past few days and while I understand your concerns about not being able to edit due to page protection, you'll have to request page protection to be removed at WP:RFRPL as suggested by NeilN or unfortunately accept that other editors are going to be responsible for implementing your edits. There is no other way around this. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have notified NeilN as required about this. Anyone can comment on the Administrators Noticeboard. You, however, are practicing bad faith with your assertions of abuse at this diff and you have been warned and blocked for personal attacks which border on the same incivility you are displaying here. I suggest a boomerang block. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The only interaction between the IP editor and myself can be found at User_talk:NeilN#Eurovision_Song_Contest_2017. I pointed out three options available to them (get auto-confirmed, asking at WP:RFRPL or actually making an edit request) but they instead chose to come here for whatever reason. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Ad Orientem

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

---

I posted a concern about an administrator and this is the response that was posted:

"I smell BS here, but I will give the benefit of the doubt for a bit. Do you have any discussion or edit diffs you can link to? Evidence is generally required at ANI. -Ad Orientem"

BS? That's how administrators respond? -I cannot believe this is how wikipedia responds to concerns. Please can somebody investigate this administrator?72.245.246.219 (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC) -

Ad Orientem is not an administrator. Nor are 80% of editors who comment here. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Then I hope that abusive comment will be dealt with.72.245.246.219 (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is about as close as I'm ever going to get to being an Admin. That said, and on a more serious note I would suggest reading WP:BOOMERANG before making anymore posts here. And that is intended as a strong but friendly suggestion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2I've dropped a notification as stated in the big yellow box above the edit window. However, I will say with confidence that no action is likely against Ad Orientem. Their statement was in way abusive nor a personal attack. We're all adults here and while we're expected to behave with certain level of decorum we're also free to express our opinions as we see fit as we are not attacking others, which is certainly not the case here. Blackmane (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Edit warrior and Sock Puppeteer

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

---

I was going to take this to the edit warring noticeboard (as is the standard), but Zjec now appears to be using a specific IP range to further their edit war ([160], [161], [162]). The reason I didn't take this to WP:SPI is because, in my experience, they mostly deal with active IP addresses. Zjec seems to change the IP addresses, while remaining in the same range.

Essentially, Zjec has been edit warring at Hulk (comics) with biased edits ([163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172]). Zjec wants to remove material pertaining to the 1970's Incredible Hulk television series simply because they dislike the show for not being close enough to the comic book (see Talk:Hulk (comics)). But despite replying to the discussion, Zjec never stopped edit warring. This user's edits directly violate WP:NPOV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and have been opposed by multiple editors who have warned Zjec to stop. Zjec has been given every opportunity to cease this absurd behaviour, yet they chose not to. And now, they brought an IP range into this. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagging relevant editors: @*Treker: @Adamstom.97: @Ian.thomson: @Ritchie333: @Darkwarriorblake: DarkKnight2149 00:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson seems to have handled the situation by blocking Zjac for 60 hours. Hopefully, Zjac will discuss the matter in the future if they still disagree. Edit warring and ignoring the points made by other editors was not the answer. DarkKnight2149 01:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Blocked for 60 hours (WP:DUCK), will lock the article and extend the block if I see further sockpuppetry. We may need to consider applying 1RR or 0RR restriction or perhaps even a topic ban on Zjec as this is the third time he's been blocked for edit warring, and not the first time he's edit warred on this article. I would start to say that we should just go with 1RR or 0RR on the basis that he does seem to be helpful when he's not edit warring, such as creating articles on characters, but he gets to be rather WP:OWN-y about them, ignoring WP:CITE and WP:RS. Looking over other edits, they are [largely unsourced, and one could accuse this of being WP:FANCRUFT, just over 1,200 words for a five issue miniseries. As such, a topic ban from comic related articles may not be the worst option for the site, though I'd rather see what would happen with 1RR and some strong reminders to stick to WP:V and WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Ian.thomson: I would give my own suggestion on that, but I have no experience with this user prior to this user prior to this event, so I'll leave the opinions on that matter to those more qualified to give them. I will, however, comment when needed when it comes to discussion on this specific edit war from Hulk (comics). DarkKnight2149 02:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Aaand his unblock request is just droning on his "I don't like it" reasons for edit warring, completely refusing to address the sockpuppetry or edit warring. At least an article ban on Hulk (and probably a 1rr restriction elsewhere) is starting to seem appropriate, though he is still pissy from the block. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I know it might seem a bit gloating of me but I would gladly not see him be able to edit any more any Hulk articles since he's clearly way to biased about it.*Trekker (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I blocked Zjec and *Treker for both violating 3RR last week; *Treker quickly apologised, made a good unblock request and was unblocked; AFAIK Zjec said nothing. I'm not going to review the latest unblock request as I've already blocked; however a neutral admin might want to mention this to them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

From the unblock request, the user clearly seems to be missing the point. I had hoped that they would learn from this in order to be more productive in the future, but instead they refuse to see any error in their actions. A topic ban or 1RR would be logical, since this doesn't appear to be Zjec's first rodeo. DarkKnight2149 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Zjec appears to be using the 2a02:c7d:5d47:f900::/64 range to edit war. I've blocked it for 60 hours, corresponding to Ian's block on the account. (It'll last a little longer, but meh.) Bishonen | talk 17:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC).

• Darkknight2149, if it's only one article being affected, the best solution is to request a fairly lengthy semi-protection (which prevents IPs from editing) of the article at WP:RFPP, and cite "persistent IP-hopping sockpuppetry" as your rationale. (That would of course be in addition to reporting the registered account at WP:ANEW if warranted.) Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I usually only request protection if there's multiple disruptive users on the page or if it's a particularly elusive sock puppeteer. Zjec only seems to be sticking to a specific IP range. DarkKnight2149 17:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, no one is going to block an IP range if they can help it, because that unfailry affects uninvolved people. Three specific IPs have now been blocked, but the blocks will expire in about 30 hours from now. The only logical way to handle persistent IP-hopping disruption is semi-protection (or at the least, pending changes), which can be instituted for longer term and does not prevent uninvolved IPs from making edit requests, etc. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: @Bishonen: @Softlavender: @Ritchie333: I probably will be requesting protection for Hulk (comics) now. You might want to block Zjec and his socks for even longer, because he just tried to use another sock puppet from a different IP range to continue the edit war. DarkKnight2149 14:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, re: "no one is going to block an IP range if they can help it", that's not so in the case of IPv6 (the long funny-looking ones). I will block an IPv6 /64 range without a qualm, as it is practically always assigned to a single user. A block on such a range won't inconvenience anybody else. If you look at the three IPs in question, you'll see that their first four groups of figures are the same, 2a02:c7d:5d47:f900. That's the sign of a /64 range, and I have therefore, as I mentioned above, blocked the 2a02:c7d:5d47:f900::/64 range. Not just the three separate IPs, which would be like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. If disruption from the range continues after the block expires, I'll be glad to re-block it for longer. (I made the first block pretty short so as to respect the block time Ian Thomson had applied to the Zjec account.) The new IP, 113.210.52.218, from Thailand, is something else. Darkknight, 113.210.52.218 has been blocked, and if Zjec comes back from yet another open proxy (which I suspect 113.210.52.218 is, because I don't think his ass is in Thailand; the IPv6 range he originally used geolocates to Suffolk), I suggest that should be the breaking point for semi. I don't actually think semi on this type of article is as harmless as you seem to, Softlavender, so I'd prefer to wait till then. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC).

I made the block short in the hope that he'd learn his lesson. Assuming 113.210 is Zjev, I'm inclined to make the block indefinite now (seeing has most of his good-faith edits were more benign than actually useful and he is now editing in bad faith), though I haven't had breakfast yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, wait, I see the block is already extended to a month. That's fine, too. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, all good. Not much sense in leaving 2A02:C7D:5D47:F900:0:0:0:0/64, which I take to be Zjev's personal range, at large, then. I've extended the block on that as well to a month. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

I see the user has now been blocked indefinitely. DarkKnight2149 15:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Contaldo80 in slow-motion edit war on Robert Sarah

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

---

@Contaldo80: has been engaging in an edit war for 12 months now in order to protect his preferred version of Robert Sarah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His efforts mainly focus on a section heading describing Sarah's positions on issues of marriage. I have attempted all manner of dispute resolution, including and culminating in a WP:RFC which has not drawn a lot of participation, but Contaldo keeps claiming it's "over" and "settled" while the RFC is still open - so some of his edits involve removing the {{NPOV}} tag I placed on the section.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=690889725&oldid=690266962
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=715216635&oldid=714976713
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=722342979&oldid=721204004
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=728732135&oldid=728607605
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=730344913&oldid=729672232
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=742736722&oldid=742033561
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=742901213&oldid=742855809
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=744010743&oldid=743808215
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=745303923&oldid=745303874
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sarah&diff=745313883&oldid=745313713

Contaldo80 is exhibiting ownership symptoms on quite a number of articles. Basically, if I make an edit on one of them, it is a foregone conclusion that he will come back and revert to his preferred version (sooner or later, sometimes it takes up to a week or so, because he is wary of bright-line revert-rules that have tripped up @Roscelese: in the past.)

• Anne Catherine Emmerich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gay bishops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (currently in question: an alleged BLP violation that Contaldo80 insists on restoring)

Contaldo80 discusses, but he always aggressively reverts at the same time he discusses. So therefore it is rather deceptive that he is discussing at all, he is simply doing all things possible to protect his preferred version, and has no intention of compromise or collaboration. Elizium23 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• You've already taken this issue to ArbCom where it was roundly rejected. I'm not sure why you're forum-shopping it to ANI now, especially as history shows that such behaviour (especially where previous fora have shown a consensus that it was your behaviour that is the issue) is more likely to result in an Australian hunting weapon. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Because ArbCom referred me here, as your link so helpfully demonstrated. You're part of the problem, too, Black Kite. Elizium23 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

As ArbCom pointed out, neither Contaldo80, myself, nor any of the other editors who have rejected your position both in the article and on the talk page are "the problem" here; one would have assumed that such a long-time editor as yourself would have grasped the idea of consensus by now, but clearly it is still evading you. Your response to the RFC that went against you? "don't pretend that you are establishing a consensus against us in a 14-month edit war just because the RFC went your way." [173]. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about consensus then. @Chicbyaccident: [174] @Bmclaughlin9: [175] @Afterwriting: [176] @73.173.83.26: [177] @NapoleonX: [178] @Jujutsuan: [179] @66.87.138.151: [180] @75.148.9.77: [181] @86.160.189.48: [182] @Cr7777777: [183] - ten editors - objected to the section header that Contaldo80 and you kept trying to edit-war in - none of them weighed in on the RFC, so it is skewed toward those who did weigh in on your side, and yes, an artificial consensus has begun developing to the contrary. But before I started the RFC - yes, I'm the one who is attempting WP:DR here, nobody else has - there was clearly no consensus at all for your proposal. You're welcome. Elizium23 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those diffs. Actually, the only non-IP editor that actually agreed with your change to the section header was Chicbyaccident; the others all made minor changes (i.e. "rights" to "movement") or in the case of BMcLaughlin and Afterwriting, actually changed it away from your defintion. Oh hang on, I'm wrong - you did have two allies - NapoleonX who also insisted on inserting "gay" into the description of one of Sarah's critics, and Cr7777777 who was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry, and, er oh, this. Good company you keep. Black Kite (talk)

FYI, I never engaged in any "sock puppetry" unless you are referring to when I accidentally didn't sign a comment and went back and signed it within a minute of the original submission. That is a false accusation by the gay bullies who administer. Whenever I need to point out how ridiculously biased the Wikipedia editors are on certain controversial issues, I just need to refer them to the article on Cardinal Sarah so they can judge for themselves.Cr7777777 (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Gay bullies". Thanks for proving my point. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am actually sorry I brought in those diffs, but not for the reason you think. I am sorry because I let this thread go down the rabbit-trail of content dispute, when what is at issue is edit-warring behavior. It doesn't matter if you are on the right or wrong side of consensus, edit-warring is always wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop as well, then? Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not edit-warred. Elizium23 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No, of course you haven't. [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Could an uninvolved editor close this please, as it isn't going anywhere (unless Cr7777777 wants to get themselves blocked with some more homophobic abuse). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Scjessey is gate-keeping Hillary Clinton articles

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

---

The wikipedia user Scjessey has posted harassing comments and warning on my talk page, because he appears to be gate-keeping the Clinton-related articles on Wikipedia. Can somebody look into how Scjessey hassesses other Wikipedia editors in a campaign of intimidation and abuse of rules, please ? This shilling and intimidation should be unacceptable on Wikipedia. --maslowsneeds🌈 14:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You probably ought to withdraw this complaint now before things get ugly. Whatever else may be going on in article space, there was a project-wide consensus not to include politicians' religious affiliation in their infoboxes, and as far as I can tell you went against that consensus after Scjessey cautioned you not to do so. Your repetitive edits[189][190] also violate the sanctions notice you may find on that article's talk page. You got that notice on August 25, in reference to a different article. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maslowsneeds (talk · contribs) is unhappy about being templated by me for edit warring against this Village Pump RfC (diff, diff) in violation of an Active Arbitration Remedy of 1RR. Their response was to inappropriately template me in retaliation, together was various accusations of "gate-keeping", "shilling" et al (example diff). While it is true I am quite active in articles related to Hillary Clinton at the moment, suggestions that I am somehow "gate-keeping" these articles are absurd, and not at all borne out by my editing history. I will not be watchlisting this noticeboard, so please leave a message on my talk page if you seek more from me on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not the first time I have tried to come to this admin board, seeking help about what to do with editors, who are gate-keeping articles about the Clintons. The last time, I was advised to just go away. I'm not surprised that I'm getting the same treatment now. This should not get ugly, all I am seeking is a determinationa about why edits are reverted by editors, such as by Scjessey, and then I am the one, who Scjessey accuses of being engaged in an edit-war ? Is this the culture and environment that Wikipedia wants for its contributors ? I was flamed with a warning after I updated the Hillary Clinton page with her religion. My edit went through a series of reverts, restores, before I restored it. I made the initial edit after I showed that the logic being used on the talk page was actually a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. Besides the instant complaint, there is a long pattern of complaints about the Clinton Foundation article being gate-kept and censored. If Wikipedia is concerned about drawing unwanted attention to the appearances that it enables this kind of shilling, I understand. But I'm not here about that. I'm here to ask Wikipedia if it allows editors to engage in a pattern of using warnings as harassment and intimidation against other contributors.--maslowsneeds🌈 15:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Is that why this all sounds familiar? Really, if you want to complain that Wikipedia is a liberal cabal run by political operatives, you've come to the wrong place. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• I was just on my way to warn User:Maslowsneeds that they were violating the Discretionary Sanctions by repeatedly inserting something against consensus. first insertion, second insertion. Their rationale for repeatedly inserting it was that in their opinion the consensus was "based on a fallacy". Of course, their opinion does not allow them to violate 1RR as they did. However, I do not see any evidence that they have ever been given the official DS warning; I will do so now. The lack of a previous official warning means they probably don't qualify for a WP:BOOMERANG over this report. But they will need to abide by the Discretionary Sanctions in the future. And in the meantime, they need to stop picking fights with other users. That's a sure road to a future boomerang. Perhaps Maslowsneeds should start actually reading and heeding warnings - instead of whining that all warnings are harrassment, intimidation, abuse, etc. Warnings exist for a reason. (Note: I am involved at this article so I am commenting here only as an editor.) MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It turns out they have already been DS warned, twice: once in January about the India, Pakistan, Afghanistan area, and once in August about U.S. politics. So they cannot plead ignorance. I leave it up to the community what, if anything, to do about this. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Making an edit that is consistent with Wikipedia policy or that is reliably-sourced and that appears to be critical of a subject always triggers these warnings, these threats of sanctions. If it seems like intimidation, and if there is a pattern, it probably is intimidation. Is this what Wikipedia intends for its contributors to experience ? I'm not trying to stop you from gatekeeping the Clinton articles with Wikipedia's consent on the eve of elections, so you can get your candidate to win. I'm here to stop the intimidation that contributors experience in addition to your gatekeeping.maslowsneeds🌈 16:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It has generally been my experience (and I have been around for a while) that when all the arguments have been laid out and everybody is telling me that I am wrong, I usually am. Even in those very rare cases where I still think I am right and everybody else is wrong, I shut up and defer to WP:Consensus. IMHO pursuing this any further is not going to end the way you think it is. Just my 2 cents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to say who is right or who is wrong, that is for the admins to decide, but it is odd and strange that you make it about that. I keep asking about why did I get flamed with a warning, and all I keep getting are more warnings and threats of warnings. I will wait for other admins, who don't have a track record of watering down the Clinton-related articles, to chime in.maslowsneeds🌈 17:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 31 hours for edits " that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior" as stated in the DS notice. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

As an editor also involved in editing Hillary Clinton related articles, I believe Scjessey edits very well and doesn't apply any sort of undue influence in what makes or doesn't make a page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Mass unsourced edits to rap music articles

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

---

Rtjfan (talk · contribs) - This is a very active editor with over 4,500 edits mostly to rap music articles. This editor has never (on the 50 or so edits I looked at) added a source to an edit or left an edit summary. Today they created the biography Na'kel without even one source. With this edit a biography that had twice been re-directed for lack of notability was re-created entirely with unsourced content. Their talk page is littered with both warnings and notifications of article deletions, yet they have not once responded or changed their editing behavior. It's like a mass cut-and-paste from itunes. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support some sort of block Clearly this editor isn't getting it. While I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTHERE, it does seem like wilful contempt for the community's rules. WP:V is a horse I have sometimes been accused of beating to death so I find this kind of behavior rather irritating. IMO an enforced break from Wikipedia is in order. I'd probably start with 48hrs and see if the hint is taken. Enough warnings have been given, and ignored. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support block - There's no way this editor is unaware of all these warnings and article deletion notifications. I believe a block is perfectly in order. Parsley Man (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Single purpose account

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

---

Joebarron12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A ethnic warrior new editor has one mission here: delete the mention of Syrians,(here too), or edit articles about them with no reference and by pushing his own POV (which goes against the cited sources in the articles). his summary he explained that he knows best.

I quote him: "If you don't know the facts, stop changing this. I have been studying Syria and Syrian history for over 30 years, i am more qualified to write this than you are".

The main article of interest is this He has been inserting this for a couple of days now and he just keep on doing it after I warned him in the summaries (and he read the warnings cause he responded in his own summary).

He is also being reverted by others, but doesnt seem to get the idea. He claims that he has ("30 years of research into the genetics of the Syrian people. Stop changing correct facts"). I guess he also have a problem with Israelis.

He also told me that he will tell me why the academic sources are wrong, so hurray, we have a guy who knows the truth.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: He is still fighting 2 hours after being told that he was reported. It doesnt seem that he have the intention to come here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• I concede there is some evidence of tendentious editing here. But I am not seeing any real attempt to engage the editor on any of the various talk pages. ANI should not be the first stop in dispute resolution. If I missed an attempt to engage on one or more talk pages please link it. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have invited him now. We will see, but honestly, it doesnt seem that he came to Wikipedia to actually contribute.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You might also want to get other editors involved by posting a neutral FYI link to the discussion on relevant Wiki-Projects. This can help to establish consensus regarding the content dispute. When engaging in discussion with other editors it is also important to AGF unless there is crystal clear evidence of bad faith editing. For now I am going to close this discussion w/o prejudice to opening a new one if problems persist (i.e. disruptive editing against consensus). Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User: Cumin acup

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

---

I just reverted one definite and one probable instance of vandalism by Cumin acup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Blue Bird Corporation and CC's respectively. They're the only edits from this user, so it looks like it might be a vandalism-only account. I'm not familiar with what to do in such circumstances so thought I'd raise it here. SmilingFace (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The WP:AIV board is used for obvious vandalism. It is important to be sure the edits are truly vandalism, and that they are not too old to require attention. I didn't bother to report at WP:AIV, because the first edit is not obvious vandalism, and there are only two edits so far. In this case, though, Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention would also be a possible place to turn. I'm headed there right now. Willondon (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC) (Add ping @SmilingFace:). - Willondon (talk)

I second reporting this to WP:UAA. Parsley Man (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Reported to WP:UAA. Blackmane (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

And indefinitely blocked by User:KrakatoaKatie. Blackmane (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User intimidation and ban threatening at Talk:Singapore

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

---

user:Lemongirl942 has been stifling dissent on Talk:Singapore (see, e.g., Talk:Singapore#Wider_discussion_.28if_required.29) by threatening users with bans. I am an uninterested party and found such behavior to be problematic. This user seems to have forgotten such principals as WP:THREATEN and WP:GOODFAITH, and from my observation, has not been receptive to being reminded of these policies by other users. Vile-eight (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The editor she threatened to report for blocking wound up getting blocked, three times, by three different administrators. This would suggest Lemon knows what she's doing, and that her warnings were incredibly accurate. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that one user she threatened was blocked a single time on August 1, 2016 (prior to the threats) and the other user she threatened has not been blocked, but I'm not really familiar with the system so feel free to give me a link. Regardless, this Incident is related to Lemongirl942's behavior of threatening that users will be blocked or banned in order to affect the outcome of discussion, and other intimidation tactics employed by Lemongirl942 in the linked talk page. Wikipedia provides many tools to help editors reach consensus. Threats and intimidation are not included in those tools. Vile-eight (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

But you haven't shown anything of the sort. In the link you provided, another editor accuses Lemongirl of this behavior, showing diffs of 6 times she threatened another user with a report. That's the user that was blocked three times. Warning users that they may be blocked for violating policy is not a problem if those warnings are accurate. If you want to get anywhere with this complaint, you have to show that lemongirl warned someone who should not have been warned. If you're not experienced enough to understand when a warning is warranted, you shouldn't be taking complaints to ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I provided a single example. There are many more on the linked talk page. I could pull quotes, but they would lack the context of the behavior. Furthermore this behavior has a chilling effect on future contributors. I know that I would be afraid to contribute to this article. I don't have a vendetta against Lemongirl942, so I have no opinion on her conduct on other talk pages, such as the one you indicated. My experience is irrelevant in regards to Lemongirl942's violation of WP:THREATEN. As I stated, the following lack context:

• "Warpslider, it is very clear you don't have enough experience editing Wikipedia. You attitude and pointy actions are not welcome. Consider this a warning. If you continue to do it, you are pushing yourself towards a block. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)"
• "Wow, a pointy action. All I'm going to say is multiple editors have been blocked for actions like the one you did. It's very obvious you are an SPA and you don't have enough experience to understand how Wikipedia works. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)"
• "Nick-D Thank you. I largely agree with the changes. I am specifically warning Wrigleygum not to POV push here. If Wrigleygum continues to do this, I will push for a block or PBAN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)"; "It's pretty clear you are an SPA here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)"
• "I don't see any other way. The combination of POV pushing, status quo stonewalling, refusal to understand the consensus, pointy editing and meatpuppetry by the SPAs is way too much. I don't want to expend my energy here. I actually prefer how the article is right now - a puffed up lead but with a nice tag warning that the lead is not neutral. Any reader will read and definitely realise that the lead is biased. So the effect of making Singapore look good is actually not going to work. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)"
• "Your behaviour was pointy and I just warned you. Other editors have been blocked for pointy editing and you are pushing yourself towards it. Also, if a bunch of SPAs leave Wikipedia, it will make everyone's life a lot easier. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)".

Vile-eight (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221 has it right. Lysimachi (talk · contribs) has been blocked 3 times. And Lemongirl942 has no power to block or ban anyone. Threatening to report someone is not the same as threatening to block or ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Lysimachi (talk · contribs) is not and has never been the subject of this report. I suggest both you, Baseball Bugs, and Someguy1221 examine the linked talk page before making further contributions. This report is directed to Lemongirl942's behavior towards users Warpslider (talk · contribs) and Wrigleygum (talk · contribs) on the talk page for Singapore. And indeed, threatening to report someone if they do not follow some order is literally the first example of prohibited behavior on WP:THREATEN. Moreover, many of the quotations that I just provided go beyond simply threatening reporting to imply that Lemongirl942 possesses power to block or ban the users. Vile-eight (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"...it is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur". What you are really asking for is that Lemongirl942 follow through on those comments and report the editors in question. Do you really want to go there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what should have occurred, but as you clearly haven't had time to look at the material being reported since your last post, and because in your first post you in fact mentioned a user being blocked that has never even contributed to the page in question, I'm not sure that you have the requisite information to provide meaningful contributions to this issue. I have a hard time believing that you have even read the quotes linked on this very page and would be able to honestly sit there and say there is no problem whatsoever with messages like these (See WP:NPA, WP:GOODFAITH, WP:BULLYING, and common sense). And for the record, I don't agree with your interpretation of that policy. Vile-eight (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As Someguy1221 indicated, you directed us to a section on that talk page which lists several comments by a user named Lysimachi, who has been blocked three times. As to the policy, should I believe you, or should I believe what it actually says, and which I already quoted back to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not link to that, I linked to an example comment of many from Lemongirl942. I then provided a handful of quotes. Not sure why you are ignoring the terrible behavior by this editor. I'm not going to re-requote all of the content for you, but you think that talk contributions like "if a bunch of SPAs leave Wikipedia, it will make everyone's life a lot easier." are a-okay?. Vile-eight (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You most certainly did link to it. In your opening sentence, you said to link to Talk:Singapore#Wider_discussion_.28if_required.29, which is where the comments about Lysimachi are listed. And I do not agree that Lemongirl942's warnings are inherently "terrible". But we'll see what the admins have to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see your confusion. No, I was referring to Lemongirl942's comments in that thread, not the comments from the other editors trying to defend themselves. Vile-eight (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why does User:Vile-eight come out of a 2-year period of inactivity just to report an editor with which they had no interaction whatsoever, concerning a talk page where they have 0 edits? What is their dog in this fight?--Atlan (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think this was quite what Lemongirl had in mind[191]. Having said that, I agree with at least some of what Lemongirl has said about POV pushing. Consider the diffs Warpslider has linked, she ended up being absolutely correct and Lysimachi was blocked for the very reason she stated. From NPA itself; it is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur. I find this highly relevant, Lemongirl doesn't tend to make threats that she isn't willing to go through with. "Stop your POV pushing, or I will make sure you get blocked". That said, this was unnecessary. Assuming Lemongirl reads this I would like to take a moment to remind her that this sort of language is not conducive to a collaborative environment. It has the opposite effect. No person confronted in such a way has ever stopped and thought, "you know what, maybe you have a point". It is fuel to the fire, nothing else. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Reply by Lemongirl942 Uh, I just saw this a while ago. That article (Singapore) has seen so much POV pushing and filibustering by a bunch of SPAs, that I have ultimately resorted to creating an RfC for debating each sentence one by one. I launched the latest RfC, and then took a short Wiki-break to destress...came back today and found this. On hindsight, yes, I should have been calmer and inflaming a discussion doesn't help. But the POV pushing/filibustering has been going on for a really long time (since June) that I got frustrated. Now coming to OP, I'm finding it a bit suspicious.

• User:Vile-eight lasted edited on 15 Decemeber 2014 and the next edit was today (8 November 2016). I have never interacted with the OP previously, so I don't see how they even know me.
• User:Warpslider has a similar history. After an edit on 29 June 2010, their next edit was on 11 July 2016 where they voted on this RFC at Singapore.
• The RFC above also had a user Panacealin who voted in their very first edit.
• And all of this started after User:Wrigleygum decided to add excessive puffery to the article which I tried to remove but was reverted. Note that Wrigleygum tried to do the same at Lee Hsien Loong and was blocked for edit warring.
• Note:I had previously brought this issue to ANI. See User:Wrigleygum and issues at Singapore, although the thread was archived.

All of this is very weird and there is a possibility of meatpuppetry going on. Pinging User:Nick-D since they had asked me to let them know. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Complete refusal to engage in civil and constructive conversation by User:MShabazz and User:Malik Shabazz

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

---

These are two accounts by the same person. He reverted my edits on Joe Slovo numerous times with no explanation, aside from making condescending remarks and citing policies that contradicted his own position. Despite the fact that I offered policies supporting my position, he continued to revert me with no explanation. I went to the talk page, and gave a lengthy explanation of my position. Look at his conduct on Talk:Joe_Slovo#Yossel_Mashel_.22Joe.22_Slovo and it should pretty much speak for itself.

Not only has he refused to participate in civil discussion and made numerous personal attacks against me, he's falsely accused me of vandalism and made threats against me. He's used his two accounts to incite me into breaking 3RR by taking turns reverting my edits with no explanation, even after I've explain myself in the edit summaries and talk page. And then he reports me for breaking 3RR even though he himself broke it first. Despite my best efforts to have a civil, constructive discourse about the edits, he has done nothing but personally attack, edit-war, threaten, and troll me. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What's your source for his full name? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

And for the notion that his Yiddish name remained his legal name throughout his life? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Googling the subject, I saw something about the ANC being a "Jewish front". That's probably the motivation for making a thing about his supposed birth name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Recommend edit warring block for both parties per common practices. Swarm ♠ 03:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What a crybaby you are, Sleeping is fun. I didn't make a personal attack or threaten you. I told you that you had violated 3RR and asked you to self-revert to avoid being reported and blocked.

And take some personal responsibility. "He made me edit-war with his magic powers" has got to be the lamest fucking excuse since "the dog ate my homework". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I "took turns" using my two accounts to induce you to edit-war and break 3RR? What are you smoking? Show us the diffs! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

And yes, please look at my conduct at Talk:Joe Slovo after you look at User talk:Sleeping is fun#Joe Slovo, so you see what I'm dealing with. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Look what you made me do" is a child's game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that my magic powers caused Sleeping is fun to make this report against me. That and the fact that I made a report against him an hour ago at WP:ANEW. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. We got some pleasant people in this community, don't we? —Sleeping is fun (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Did my magic powers cause you to revert once again at Joe Slovo? What is that, six reverts in the past 24 hours? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

PS - When you revert six times in a day, against three different editors, it's hard to argue that you're trying to "reach consensus". "Impose my version" is more like it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The gang-mentality is strong here, indeed. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

And another revert. Are you looking to set some sort of record? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sleeping is fun has already had three blocks for edit-warring in the past four months: [192]. In contravention of WP:BRD he has failed to gain consensus for his version, and there is current consensus to retain the style as it was before he changed it. He is still rapidly edit-warring and reverting despite instructions to obtain or engage in consensus. Softlavender (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

As well as a pretty WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude right here. It's everyone else's fault, apparently. And combined with edit summaries such as this and WP:ASPERSIONS of 'gang-mentality.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support some sort of block for both - Apparently both parties are at fault for edit-warring and personal attacks here, if this very discussion is of any indication. I don't care who started it; all you had to do was be civil in your responses. Parsley Man (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

New account edit-warring, inserting unsourcd material, and seemingly created with the specific intention of gaming the system

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

---

Jupiter Europa (talk · contribs) is a new account that appears to have been created with the specific purpose of getting around semi-protection on United States presidential election, 2016. They appear to have registered a few days earlier and made some innocuous edits to other articles before showing up on election day and edit-warring to prematurely declare one of the candidates the victor in various states. Their edit summaries cite "NYT", but without a link or anything inserted inline. Edit-warring and unsourced edits are bad enough, but the gaming of the system by registering a week in advance and making some edits in order to get autoconfirmed seems especially suspect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The most recent numbers posted by that editor seem to be in line with what the TV networks are showing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but aren't we supposed to be behind the ball? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Is CNN.com a reliable source? They have it 238-209 right now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

Does this diff -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=746919097&oldid=746913371

constitute a legal threat?

Trugster | Talk | Contributions 08:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Stating something is libellous is not a legal threat. Stating 'I am going to sue you for libel' is a legal threat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't say that that was a legal threat at all. Pointing out that someone may be engaging in libel is not the same as saying they find it libelous and are intimating they may sue. Blackmane (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• What they said, although they are skirting policy a bit. That is a word that is best avoided here as it is easy to tread into causing a "chilling effect" even if you don't make a direct threat. He wasn't notified, which is *required*, Trugster. See the template at the top of the page for instructions. I left a message on their page pointing them here and explaining. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Dennis Brown and apologies to DaveHMBA for the omission. Trugster | Talk | Contributions 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Stating something is libelous is not in itself a legal threat, but if it was meant to have a similar chilling effect to one, then there is no functional difference between the two in the eyes of Wikipedia policy. I'm not touching the content of the BLPN post or that article with a ten-foot pole (except to say that the BLPN post appears to actually belong on MFD, not BLPN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, you will see that my statement is made to Wiki, in that I asked for the removal of a rant (hopefully with a gentle warning) from a BLP Talk page on the grounds that it was libellous against me (I am not the subject of the BLP, although I know the person in question). I had intended to discuss what can happen in a situation where a historical author is engaged in activities damaging to his reputation, but are unrelated to the historical matter, and where a single episode in the historical subject can be used to cast doubt by his opponents over the rest of his output - these are important issues in the context of historical writing. I do not expect to get a response along the lines of what came back, which as I stated is libellous. I reported it to Wiki to avoid a direct slanging match with the author of the comments, which may well have resulted in threats of legal action, precisely because that is not helpful to what Wiki is trying to do. Nevertheless, neither are comments like those conducive to sensible discussion and I asked Wiki to deal with it. The rationale for the complaint was that the comments were libellous against me (and thus irrelevant to the question or BLP) and I did not make any threat to their author. DaveHMBA (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@DaveHMBA: "libel" is a legal term, and even if accusing another of engaging in libel against you is not technically banned on Wikipedia, it is highly discouraged. If you believe someone violated BLP against a named individual, or attacked you personally, then you should say so -- using words like "libelous" only causes problems. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri: I am perfectly well aware of what 'libel' means as I qualified up as an English lawyer many years ago. "Attacking" someone is not necessarily a defamatory statement 9see the "personal attacks" item above) and putting a defamatory statement in a permanent medium is libel. There are too many people on Wiki and elsewhere, who think they can say what they like and - if you read what I have just written above - it is important that they and their activities are brought to the attention of Wiki and the wider readership. I have simply asked Wiki to remove it as it is libellous, falling within that definition. "prsoanl attack" can often simply be a matter of opinion. DaveHMBA (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@DaveHMBA: If you feel that a statement is potentially libelous or defamatory, you can approach any admin and bring it to their attention to request revision deletion. If it is really serious, then you should make Oversight aware of it so the edit can be suppressed. Bear in mind that requesting and edit be Oversighted should be done off ANI. Blackmane (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@DaveHMBA: Saying that you are a trained lawyer, and that that was definitely libel, does nothing to calm the situation. It makes your comment look more like a legal threat. Posting on BLPN that an entire talk page should be deleted because some unspecified comment(s) by User:Tirailleur (you should provide diffs) might be libelous is not going to work -- it's not even the right venue to request page deletion. BLPN is for requesting community input (not specifically admin input, and only admins can delete pages) on content disputes that are related to the biographies of living people policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if DaveHMBA would identify what, exactly, he/she thinks is libellous in Tirailleur posts. I've read through the talk page and I'm not seeing it. What I am seeing is a fair amount of pomposity and condescention from DaveHMBA with absolutely no supporting detail. Right now, for me, the whole thing reeks of DaveHMBA making generalised wavy-hand assertions of some sort of transgression which requires the deletion of a complete page. I'm not buying that for an instant. Glancing at my bogusometer, I see that it is in the red. Details, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You really seem intent on starting a fight, don't you? So, to help your 'bogusmeter' with its internal stupidity in understanding what most people can probably see, we can start with 'libel': It is the production of defamatory statements in a permanent medium. Defamation is a statement, which intends to or is reckless about diminishing a person's standing among his peer group. Such a statement can be direct or produce implications, which is quite important here, given the nature of the BLP subject's recent convictions and the general climate about such issues in the UK.

Here is what he wrote: "Far from being the saintly, unfairly-put-upon actor that you misrepresent him as being, Hofschroer is demonstrably a thoroughly nasty and dishonest piece of work. His response to anyone who disagreed with him or pointed out errors was to accuse them of being mad or a paedophile. It's all in the public domain. At no time has he made any serious effort to address critique of his work, however cogent or well-founded. Instead he relies on suggestible saps and sockpuppets to tut-tut on his behalf about how sad it is that "the kind of people" who criticise him offered "little actual debate or presentation of evidence" who "can't counter his historical arguments with reason". All that is simply sanctimonious untruthful rubbish spouted by Hofschroer and with nil basis in fact. All the above has been put to him, and his response to reasonable challenge is to shriek squalid, hypocritical abuse. It is exctly because he can't win the debate that he resorts to vicious smears.

If you want to trust his judgment and be his little helper that's your lookout, but the world of Napoleonic enthusiasts is pretty good at debunking lying charlatans (see David Hamilton-Williams, a "historian" who faked an entire archive) and I'm afraid Hofschroer is just another such. Tirailleur (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)"

Okay - try: 1)"far from being the saintly, unfairly-put-upon actor that you misrepresent him as being" - at no point did I say this, merely that the behaviour of some of his opponents left a lot to be desired and that a campaign had been whipped up against his original book. It is a statement about my judgement and by implication, how it was affected. 2) After a unpleasant rant about the subject, Tirailleur continues: "If you want to trust his judgement and be his little helper" - now, given that I thought it was right to say I had known the subject for many years (not that I have seen him for 13 years or spoken to him for about 4), what would you say that phrase following on from the rant above implies? Would you like to see yourself attached to a rant like that? I suspect not, so why do you think I should put up with it? 3) As I explained below, the guy is an ignorant clown for libelling me and then failing to realise he was praising me for looking at sourcing incisively.

So, what is Tirailleur's intent? Well, Waterloo certainly raises the hackles on both sides and the whole aggro (I would not call it a debate) went on for about 10 years - yes, you do have to wonder about some people and past events, but then a bloke did tell me in a pub in 1991 that he "wouldn't have anything said against Elvis". Tirailleur's intent as regards the subject was to discredit his entire output (possibly because it raises other historical questions he finds awkward) and quite clearly to defame anyone else, who pointed out that his own behaviour left much to be desired. I was quite happy to engage in debate about how we view an author's output in the light of unrelated events and/or a specific related episode, but I will not be defamed by some fool with a bizarre agenda. Okay, have I made myself clear enough now? I didn't want to waste anyone's time with a long explanation, but it seems to be what a few want. So, please listen - because if you and Wiki want the kind of nonsense spouted by Tirailleur, don't be too surprised if others say "I am not interested". DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, read what I wrote - and I do not need additional stupid remarks from others, who know nothing of the subject area, such as Tagishsimon. If Wiki is going to allow the remarks of the type by Tirailleur (who is making similar comments on a specialist board), then I am not interested. DaveHMBA (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

He blanked Flags of the Imperial Austrian Army of the Napoleonic Wars a few minutes ago so I've given him a 31 hour block. Yes, he created it, but blanking isn't the way to go. I'm not happy about his comment just above or his refusal to be specific. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I should be more specific about times. Within a minute of his comment above ending with "I am not interested" he blanked the article. I saw that as a disruptive response to this discussion. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Doug, I was merely trying to indicate my displeasure - it seems you did notice that. That was quite a lot of work and while it is listed as a start article, it is in fact, the current state of knowledge. Now, can I suggest you deal with the original point about the libellous comments made by Tirailleur on the BLP Talk page please? I am not interested in trying to engage in a discussion about how an author's output is dealt with in the light of other events, if you are going to allow libellous comments designed to avoid answering the point. I see however that Tirailleur paraded his own silly behaviour, so I have flagged that up and left it at that. I would prefer that it is removed, something I have been asking for since 31/10. I am not "refusing to be specific", but did not press the detail, simply to avoid a long argument. However, I have now done so above. Now, I would ask that you remove his libellous claims and let everyone else revert to editing or sensible discussion. DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Good call. As Ken White at Popehat often states, vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of meritless thuggery. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That was a really helpful intervention. DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't much like it being insinuated that I don't know what I'm talking about -- what is it that I don't know? The Napoleonic Wars? This isn't about the Napoleonic Wars. I do know Wikipedia policy regarding legal threats, which is the subject of this discussion. The original comment was borderline, and the user should have been required to clearly retract it and clarify that it was not a threat. In all of his/her comments in this thread, he/she has instead ramped up the implication that he/she meant it as a threat. Hopefully, if/when the current block is appeal, a retraction of the legal threats will also be forthcoming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your condescending attitude was what I was talking about - being trained in the law, I do know what a libellous statement is, probably rather better than you. If you bother to read what I wrote, you will see that I objected to the claims made by Tirailleur on that basis and had made my complaint on that basis - precisely because I did not wish to drop the conversation into threats. It seems you fail to grasp this simple concept as you have repeated some nonsense twice now. However as you all seemed so keen that I should take his claims apart (at the risk of a blow-up), I took another look at the page. Oh, Tirailleur has done the job for me by revealing his own stupidity - he praises a review of a book by another author, which pointed out the author had engaged in serious invention and led to that author's disgrace. I have merely pointed out that I was the author of the review, so I am obviously quite capable of dealing with sourcing and taking an objective view of sourcing! Tirailleur should perhaps be excluded, initially, I thought for libellous statements, but maybe just for stupidity.

I have answered the specific matters above. I trust that when I say I have a legal background and take exception to libellous statements, some people here will take it on board, when I say that the statements are defamatory and as such should be removed as being against Wiki's harassment and libel policies. Then perhaps a few of you will read what I say when I said that I was complaining to Wiki as I did not wish to get into threats, of which I made none. Okay? DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

We're trying our best to understand the issue, but still failing. You may have a legal background - let us take that as read - but you are not making a good job of explaining the alleged libel. You say "he praises a review of a book by another author, which pointed out the author had engaged in serious invention and led to that author's disgrace. I have merely pointed out that I was the author of the review". Does the kernel of the libel lie in that part of your explanation? If so, I'm not seeing it. You were the author of a review. A review [asserts] that a book author engaged in serious intervention leading to the author's disgrace? But you are the review author, not the disgraced author. It may all be very clear to you. In all honesty, and with the best will in the world, it is not clear to me. Please humour us by explaining some more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You realize that by following {{tq|Your condescending attitude]} with being trained in the law, I do know what a libellous statement is, probably rather better than you you are kind of defeating you own point, right? Anyway, I never insinuated that you don't know what the word "libel" meant -- I meant that if you did mean it in any kind of legal sense (which you then clarified that you did) then you should stop using it because it's not going to lead to any good news for you. Openly engaging in repeated vandalism is the best way to immediately get yourself indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia, posting blatant legal threats is a close second, and using language that implies a legal threat (which is what you did) is a very close third. A distant fourth is perhaps engaging in an edit-war right after getting unblocked for saying you won't edit-war. I'm not saying you have done 1, 2 or 4 -- what I am saying is that 1, 2 and 3 are all essentially the same as far as Wikipedia blocking policy is concerned. You really need to stop using the words "libel" and "libelous" post-haste: you can use "personal attack", and even if you are wrong you won't risk getting yourself permanently blocked from editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Do I have to spell it out again? There are two matters - no.s 1 (statement about my judgement) and 2 (little helper/supporter), which are both libellous. Point 3 was just the proof of how his own agenda is actually blinding him to a rational approach and actually shows his claims (especially No.1) are false. Okay? DaveHMBA (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Tirailleur seems to think your judgement in this matter sucks. That's his/her opinion. It is not libel for someone to specify that they think your judgement sucks. I agree that Tirailleur says "If you want to ... be his little helper". That's somewhat pissy perhaps, but not libel. One who supports, even in part, the position of another may well be labelled by an antagonist as 'a little helper'. So, no, I'm not seeing libel, at all. I'm seeing you not liking Tirailleur and/or his/her writing, and making an assertion of libel which seems to be wholly groundless. I'm sorry that I do not see things as you do, at least the the extent that it seems to be annoying you. I'm happy to be schooled some more by you as to why any element of Tirailleur writing amounts to libel. I can only say, right now, I'm completely and utterly unconvinced by your libel assertion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@DaveHMBA: Setting aside the question of whether the two points you mention actually are libelous in legal terms (I haven't looked at them and I don't intend to), you do realize that repeatedly characterizing them with that word is likely to get you in trouble, right? On your talk page you also called them "defamatory"[193] which is just as bad. Why can't you just called them "personal attacks made without evidence"? Discussing this kind of matter in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than in real-world legal terms is almost certain to work out better for you in the long run, because Wikipedia is very strict about speaking in a manner that implies you are trying to intimidate your opponents with off-wiki legal action. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

SLBedit disruptive behavior

This user is constantly reverting my edits, harassing me in talk pages and is constantly preventing my contributes. It looks like he s always chasing my edits to revert them. He acts like a child, always wanting to do the last edit, other users contributions in SL Benfica related pages are always wrong, he reverts my and other users edits and then writes similar information he just reverted.

When he reverts my work he always says to talk on the talk page but he never does that. He just reverts the edits without talking first. Other users need to discuss first, he can revert any time he wants.

This user disrespects other users contributions, and does not respect the assuming good faith principle and he is always starting edit wars with me and other users like Besteirense (talk · contribs). He has a provocative attitude, and thinks he is always right in his edits, he does not respect other users.

He was banned in July due to being constantly breaking the three-revert rule. Looks like he didn't learn. P3DRO (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Callmemirela: First of all, P3DRO was also blocked. Secondly, another baseless accusation to the record. About P3DRO: read this recent incident and the consequent warning. SLBedit (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I understood your warning and I stopped my comments in this user's talk page. But he continues to harass me, reverting my work. Also, he does not denies anything that I said. I have proof that he reverts other people work without any reason at all, just so he can make the last edit. Also, one time he lied about me not putting references. P3DRO (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I am a 10 year old wikipedian and I'm seriously considering leaving this place due to this user's behavior. I do not have time to his lack of respect and good faith and childish attitude. P3DRO (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This complaint will be ignored if you do not provide any evidence from your side. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is my evidence:

• On 1 September 2014, SLBedit was warned for breaking the 3RR. 1
• On 10 January 2015, user Wackelkopp (talk · contribs) reported SLBedit for his edit-warring behavior. 2
• On 2 June 2015, SLB edit reported PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) for his edit wars and his breaking of the 3RR. The same happened on 18 July 2016 with user Italia2006 (talk · contribs) and later with me. This is his game, he starts edit wars and makes users break the 3RR so he can report them.
• On 6 July 2015, Oldstone James (talk · contribs) reported SLBedit. 1
• On 27 June 2016‎ this user reverted my work in the S.L. Benfica Juniors page. 1
• On 21 July 2016, I updated Benfica's technical staff on this page with a source from zerozero, a trustworthy website. He said I didn't put a refernece (when I add put it) only to report me. He reported me based on a LIE! Lies, the user said I didn't put any reference but it is there, from zerozero
• On the same page, a kid from Benfica played a friedly match and I updated the squad box. He reverted my edit and edited the page himself with the same info. I warned him in his talk page and he ignored me. 1
• On the same day he starded a edit war with me. 1
• On 28 September 2016 he reverted Besteirense (talk · contribs) without any reason. He later used some sadly excuse ("Fooled by UEFA website") just so he could edit the same information he had reverted. 1
• On 30 August 2016 I deleted unwanted information from one Benfica player page. He started a edit war, said to discuss the information in the talk page. I wrote in his talk page and he stoped reverting me. 1, 2, 3
• On 25 October he reverted my edit in the Benfica U19s page and didn't want to discuss it on the talk page.1, 2,
• On the same day he misjudged my words and reported me. He assumed my words were pejorative when they were not. 1 (As I said, I did not mean "canalha" in that way. In portuguese you can call "canalha" to kids as in "I have no patience to put up with the kids[canalha]".
• On 30 October I starded a discussion on that page's talk section with four other users. SLBedit came to the page with harassing me with ironys. He had reported me for my words in his talk page while he was always ignoring me however he felt injured when I ignored him and went crying to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football so everyone could see. What a childish behavior. 1, 2
• On 1 November, user Threeohsix (talk · contribs) made a complaint abou him being a warmonger. 1
• Today he reverted me two times in the U19s page. Also with the same comment about my needing to talk in the TP when he never does that. 1, 2

He thinks he his the voice of the reason, others need to talk in the talk page but he can revert when he wants. He does not respect other people's opinion, he starts edit-wars. He his currently harasing me and other users who also edit on SL Benfica stuff with his reverts. P3DRO (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There are many many more examples of him reverting me and harassing me and other users. With me it's basically stuff related with SL Benfica since he thinks he is only one that is right concerning that club. P3DRO (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• When you don't link the actual diffs, it makes it impossible to investigate. I have no idea what group of articles you are referring to, you have to use real diffs showing the edits themselves. You know them, you can produce them quickly, it would take someone else all night to, so they will instead choose to ignore the thread. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

1) And? 2) And? 3) I report users if I think it's necessary. 4) And? 5) And? 6) You mean the edit war that you started and that got us both blocked only because I added this number. 7) When? 8) When? 9) Bullshit. I was fooled. You never assume good faith. 10) You removed that sourced information by force aka edit warring. 11) Proof? 12) "Canalha" is indeed offensive and you were warned by an administrator. 12) More bullshit accusations. 13) Threeohsix, who did not assume good faith, was wrong according to GiantSnowman 14) What? If you want to remove something that is properly sourced and related to the article, discuss it on the talk page first. More bullshit coming from P3DRO. SLBedit (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• By all means, keep fighting and talking smack about each other. It makes it easier to block both of you and not have to worry about the details. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I will link the actual diffs. Also I will continue to ignore the user to avoid conflicts. P3DRO (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm defending myself. Block? That's what P3DRO wants. He just confirmed that he ignores me on purpose, like he did at Talk:S.L. Benfica Juniors. SLBedit (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Also user Qed237 (talk · contribs) said about SLBedit, and I quote "SLBedit seems to try and bully his way looking at #User:Italia2006 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Warned user(s)) above where he did excatly the same thing. He wars then reports the other editor." link P3DRO (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The edit-war game is SLBedit's game, he likes to tease other users. He has proveked me, Besteirense, PeeJay2K3, Italia2006. Threeohsix said he is a warmonger. Qed237 said he is a bully. He thinks he is the only user right in stuff concerning SL Benfica and disrespects other contributions by other users. P3DRO (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. You are digging stuff up to see what sticks. SLBedit (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think what Dennis Brown was trying to say, but it's being failed to be applied by you two, is to stop attacking each other and provide the necessary diffs to let users to make sense of this complaint. The fact that both are calling each other by attempting to prove one is a bully, one is provoking the other and whatnot is not helpful, is childish and it's battleground behaviour if I am not mistaken. I am going to say as simple as I can: Stop it all. If one ignored the other, it would be much more helpful. But instead y'all are going after each other like children and it's acceptable to block users based on that alone. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not provoking him, I am ignoring him. On this page he said he would seek a third opinion with Always Learning but you never did. He lied about me not adding refs just to report me, when I did put a reference from zerozero. He is here crying and pouting because I am ignoring him when he did not respond to my messagens in his talk page about Reinildo or his disruptive behavior. I am not digging anything, I'm proving SLBedit is constantly disrespecting me and other users. P3DRO (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of attacks and badgering. Stop it. Work on your complaint and provide diffs or else it could be considered as personal attacks or your thread will be ignored. Take these advices by Dennis and I to heart and listen very carefully. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Since I was tag, I might say something, I first knew SLBedit as Fixed4u (talk · contribs), which was blocked for 3RR but continued on editing, either logged out or with other account. Of course, a person like this will not go away, will just create another account and start again. You can change the account, but the mannerisms stick , that's why I was able to identify him when he taught it would be fun to vandalise multiple articles on Portuguese football. Eventually I reported him without mentioning him to Mattythewhite, but he did nothing. SLBedit must have saw it, because he started a massive self revert on himself, only on articles I've created, probably trying to sugarcoat me to not press the subject. Check his edits from 18 February 2016 from 5:29 to 6:17. What kind of innocent person would do that?. Also, the IP 85.240... that associate with him has long been editing, in here, he removed sources because he thinks they're biased against Benfica, here's with his account, also claiming that the same source is biased. I'm not gonna do much more diffs because his whether his using his IP, previous account or current account, his mannerism and editing pattern are the same: just stats update and other gnome like behavior, almost no editing summaries, several edits in the same article to add just a few bytes and more obvious, a general tendency to attract conflict, edit wars and content dispute. It's up to the admins to do what they think best. It's my first edit in Administrators' noticeboard, and I only did it, because I cannot edit freely Benfica content without having to spent my time arguing with SLBedit. The only way to deal with him is avoid the articles he's most active. --Threeohsix (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You are being delusional and hypocrite, Tibullus (talk · contribs) (sockmaster of Threeohsix). SLBedit (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I was just notified about this since my name was used above in a false citation from P3DRO. He linked to a discussion (diff) where I said "Both editors needs block immediately for edit warring. Where are admins?", yet he somehow claim I said ""SLBedit seems to try and bully his way looking at #User:Italia2006 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Warned user(s)) above where he did excatly the same thing. He wars then reports the other editor." These kind of false citations are serious and not good. Qed237 (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where you called SLBedit a bully. Since diffs were not provided to prove this, I'd call this a personal attack. Both editors need to stop bashing each other and either be blocked or propose an IBAN. Clearly these two editors are incapable of cooperating with each other, engage in 3RR and edit war violations, engage in uncivil and battleground behaviour, probably also engage in personal attacks, and so on. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I would suggest a week long block for both editors first so that they can really think about their behaviour. It is always best if editors could talk to eachother, so I would wait with IBAN. If things dont improve after a longer block, IBAN is a good idea. Qed237 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: The link is this YOUR QUOTE. You said it on the third paragraph of the Comments: section. This is the full quote:

User refuses to discuss in talk page. (SLBedit)

I did not violate the 3RR rule, I only did 2 reverts. I talked to you on you talk page, you deleted my text. P3DRO (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems a lot like WP:BOOMERANG here. SLBedit seems to try and bully his way looking at #User:Italia2006 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Warned user(s)) above where he did excatly the same thing. He wars then reports the other editor. P3DRO (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: user Threeohsix (talk · contribs) summarizes my position with this sentence: "(...) I cannot edit freely Benfica content without having to spent my time arguing with SLBedit". I edit content with other useres like Threeohsix, Besteirense, The Replicator, etc., and there isn't a single edit-war with them. With SLBedit he does it always. The problem here it's the fact that he does not respect others contributions and he thinks that his way is always the right way. I cannot edit with him constantly reverting my work. This user lied so he could report me. He lied again we he said he would seek a third opinion and he never did. His modus operandi is starting edit wars and report the other users. Do not tell me this is a personal attack, I am the one being constantly harassed. Yesterday he reverted my edit and threatened me: "If you want to remove it discuss on the talk page first. Or WP:ANI again." link He never discusses in the talk pag but he's always saying that I need to use the talk page. P3DRO (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point, who is responsible for what is pointless. Both of you are responsible right now. You are both edit warring, engage in uncivil and battleground behaviour. It doesn't matter who started it. You guys aren't children. It only takes one to stop it and look for other ways to fix it. You two clearly cannot collaborate with each other and it's disruptive to see two editors go after each other like, again, children by edit warring, violating 3RR, engage in uncivil and battleground behaviour, each file EW complaints thinking they are right, and so on. I am repeating at this point. I think you both deserve a block to stop this disruptive editing, rethink your strategies, and focus on other Portuguese-related articles if none of you engage in proper behaviour rather than acting like you own the article. Pinging @Dennis Brown: for his opinion on if a block is necessary. If so, I will probably propose a one-week block as per Qed (sp?). Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@SLBedit: I just saw your bad faith edit above (diff), where you accused an otnher editor for being a sockpuppet. Please do not do so without any evidence, and if you have evidence open an WP:SPI or consult with an administrator. The edit above, I would just consider harrassment. Qed237 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

And I saw your ignorant edit. I have already reported him. SLBedit (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@SLBedit: My ignorant edit? Please stop with this bad tone, and start ´behaving. Qed237 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It is bad behaviour from you to accuse me of bad faith before knowing the facts. SLBedit (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

When have I ever done that? Anyway, seeing the behaviour of both of you I wont even argue with you more. Nothing good can possibly come out of it. Qed237 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@P3DRO: Do not copy signatures from other editors, people might think we signed something we said here in this discussion. It is a bad behaviour to copy signatures. If you quote someone the use italics and cope the quote, without modifying it, and then add the diff immediately after so it is clear it was copied. Qed237 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

While we're at it, @Qed237: might want to withdraw their claim of "false citation" by P3DRO about use of the word "bully". Qed added the sentence quoted, including that word, with this edit. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Struway2: It was not in the linked discussion and I had no memory of writing that so at the time it was a "false citation". Had he quoted it correctly, with a link to the correct discussion, I would not have said anything, but he had no evidence I ever said it. However, now it is obvious I did, although it has been taken out of context. Qed237 (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You're correct that it wasn't in the linked thread; it was in the one immediately above, which he linked the second time, when he copied the whole section with signatures which made the whole thing a bit confusing. But thank you for withdrawing the accusation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I made a mistake when linking Qed237's quote. I will not edit anything until this matter is closed. I am losing my time editing and I do not want my work being reverted by SLBedit. Until he stops thinking he owns the pages related to SL Benfica and stops his attitude of wanting to do the last edit I will not contribute. I don't care if he's banned or not but it is imperial that his attitude change. P3DRO (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Technical note, if you want to quote someone instead of using a diff, you can use this template {{tq|(insert quoted text here)}}. It will render the quoted text a different colour, by default a bright green. Blackmane (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton

I have asked Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) three times not to prejudge the result of an RfC at Template talk:Marriage#End,[194][195][196] but contrary to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding is continuing to impose his preferred format[197]. I wish to recommend a community topic ban on editing, adding or removing the end parameter in transclusions of Template:Marriage until the conclusion of the RfC. DrKay (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

He's still carrying on[198][199] even though the issue is raised here. DrKay (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That style is the standard and is getting far and away the most support at the RfC, so I personally see nothing wrong with his edits. If three or four weeks from now that has drastically changed and someone closes the RfC with an absolute stricture against it, you can go back and revert his changes. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:FAIT. There was an Arbcom ruling specifically addressing this. The reason why when high amounts of similar edits like that are prohibited when its under dispute is because its a massive chore if the dispute ends up deciding against/no consensus etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Three diffs isn't "high amounts". The proposals to change the standard have gotten zero support, whereas the standard has gotten three supports. Softlavender (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Wesco482

Since 2014, Wesco482 has been making edits that go against MOS and has received several warnings not to do so, but has continued to ignore them. As far back as July 2014, I've warned the user to not add unsourced claims, which the user continues to do so. On May 2015, Wesco was uploading extra images of an album and singles without a proper rationale and was warned not to do so here, here, and here, and here. But the user continued to upload those images anyway despite receiving a block. Last month, 88marcus told the user to stop using 45worlds.com as a source because it is a website that allows anyone to submit, but has ignored that and I gave the user a reminder to not use that website. Then the user was unnecessarily capitalizing section headings (link), and told to stop after doing so repeatedly. The final straw was Wesco482 re-creating song articles about Gloria Estefan that does not meet WP:NSONGS. The user twice reverted my edit (here and here). On top of that, re-rectead Lejos de Ti with another article with different capitalization (as seen here). On that same revision, you can see that the user uploaded extra images of the single cover, showing that user has learned nothing from the last block. As you can see, the user has shown over and over to be refusing to get the point and it needs to stop. Erick (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Indef block: Wesco482 has little promises to keep, and of what Erick is saying all comes to true, then the time is right to give the disruptive editor some more time to think it over before any further damage occurs. SportsLair (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Block. Needs some sort of block to stop his endless disruptive behavior. To get unblocked he needs to demonstrate understanding of what he's doing wrong and agree not to do it anymore. Does he do anything constructive? If not, might as well be an indefinite block (which is just as easy to request unblock as a finite block). Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just an update, the user has uploaded more non-free images to Out of Nowhere (Gloria Estefan song), the very same page the user was told to stop last year. Erick (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block : I'm already in agreement with blocking this user citing WP:COMPETENCE , but remember how blocks are supposed to prevent? Well, look at MagicianDude (Erick)'s update just above, I like to think there's proof that a block will 'prevent' further trouble. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block as the user has definitely demonstrated a lack of understanding in regards to contributing here. Competence is required. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support some sort of block but not Indef (yet). I'm not convinced that this is a case of NOTHERE but I do agree that we need to put some kind of Stop Sign in front of this editor that will get their attention and hopefully encourage a course correction. Maybe a week long time out? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Considering that the user has already been blocked before but is still doing the same thing, I am doubtful that a temporary block will suffice. Erick (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Behavior of IP user

In the last few days, 80.63.3.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been displaying a failure to assume good faith to other users, and an apparent lack of knowledge on certain Wikipedia policies. Firstly, he had a small conflict about the inclusion of an infobox for the ISIL territorial claims article ([200] [201]). For the second diff, in his edit summary, he reverted the deletion of the infobox under the reasoning of WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior by opposing users, and that "status quo is kept until something else is decided on the talk page, conclusion was to include an infobox and you should respect that". However, Greyshark09 had earlier informed him after the first diff that "the outcome of the [RfC] discussion says infobox can be included, but which infobox is yet to be decided". Which is true. In other words, the IP user seems to be ignorant of the real meaning of the RfC consensus.

Secondly, he re-added the 2016 Nice attack article to the List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 after I removed it from said list because it was currently unconfirmed as terrorism. His reasoning for the reversion of my edit? WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior by opposing users. In reality, there have been discussions throughout the Nice attack article's talk page history ([202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207]), the latest of which is still ongoing. Clearly there's a huge, ongoing point of debate and contention over whether the Nice attack should be considered as a terrorist attack and not a small conspiracy of Wikipedia users operating under WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

And finally, I sent a friendly warning template (as I always do) about putting non-constructive edits like the one he did at List of terrorist incidents in July 2016. However, he reverted it and claimed WP:HARASSMENT...even though it was the first time I ever visited his talk page.

I feel this kind of ignorant behavior, on the part of this IP user, needs to be addressed and I suggest a warning to him at the very least. Parsley Man (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Just on the topic of the first part of this report regarding the infobox dispute. There is no consensus as to which infobox is to be included, however, since there was an infobox prior to the first RfC it is status quo to keep it and the consensus currently lies FOR an infobox... . A second RfC should have been opened to decide whether or not to change the infobox to a different type - not wholesale removing of the one already there. Hence I think Greyshark is in the wrong on that one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In DatGuy's own words from the RfC: "There is consensus FOR an infobox to be included in the text. However, there is not yet consensus for which infobox to be put in. I suggest either starting another RfC or starting an informal discussion, notifying the previous voters." Looking at that consensus, one can mistake that kind of wording as also encompassing the original infobox, just like I did. Parsley Man (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe that BRD should apply here. If someone disagreed with the current infobox, the IP should discuss it on the talk page to choose which one will fit. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 06:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Which he did not seem to do. Parsley Man (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

On the second point Parsley Man, usually what affects one article, affects only that article. The discussion at Talk:2016 Nice attack (which I am a part of) has no bearing on the article at List of terrorist incidents in July 2016. Again, this is something that has to be taken to the talk page, you are both edit-warring on that page. I won't revert if you revert me back, but, I highly recommend you both go to the talk page. Finally on the very last point, yes the IP has a tendency to claim Harrassment where it is not actually happening - that is a problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

At least I did find a problem posed by this user's behavior... Parsley Man (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it's not your fault. I understand your actions across all pages, it just so happens that I am also involved across all the same pages and see it differently to you. I'm writing up a comment on the List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 page directing them to the Nice attack page. Since you've already done it. Whether or not we get an Orlando shooting proportions "discussion" or not I don't know, I'm not sure Breitbart will be as concerned with this one as with that one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like an update on the theoretical investigation into this. This IP user simply cannot abuse WP:HARASSMENT like that. Parsley Man (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Christ.. WP:DEADHORSE and WP:GRUDGE. In case you can't comprehend, I don't really want to interact with you. We came across each other badly, and so be it. Good news for you: You can have ownership of the article, as I don't really feel for engaging in a conversation with you, as it will be a very unpleasant experience. You can also have this last statement from me: I consider you being self-righteous, rude and a WP:POVPUSHER, you don't respect WP:DTA, and it's ironic that you claim moral highground and lecture ME about edit warring, while 1) your ban log shows 4 incidents of edit warring [208], and 2) you violated WP:3RR a sickening number of times at the mentioned article - take a look at [209], you deserve to be banned for it.

I won't go further with my complaints, as I don't want to waste energy and mood on a repulsive personality like of yours and I don't feel for familiarizing me with the huge bureaucracy of Wikipedia. You're not being constructive, but rather vengeful, so yes, it's actually hard to assume good faith - and as for now, I expect that you turn down the noise, and I in turn won't be bothering you any longer. Or in a more direct and honest expression, pardon my French: just shut up and do whatever you want on the article. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Will you look at that? Personal attacks. Parsley Man (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd refer you to WP:DEADHORSE and WP:GRUDGE again, and keep doing so. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block of IP - The IP has demonstrated an inability to collaborate with others and claims harassment anytime an opposing viewpoint is made. This user has also been uncivil on this discussion itself. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Inability to collaborate", excuse me? I just wrote that I'll leave the mentioned page to him without my contributions, i.e. I'm not obstructing/edit warring/editing the article at all now. Also, note that Parsley Man holds a grudge towards me, trying to smear me with stuff irrelevant of the topic of the original dispute, which is the inclusion or not of the 2016 Nice attack in the article 'List of terrorist incidents in July 2016'. You should really look up his ban log, and of his contributions his general hostile attitude of reverting whatever he doesn't agree with, and abuse of UW-template on my talk page. If you're going to discuss constructive behavior, take a look of my critique 13:35 - what's important is: check his ban log, and also: unsanctioned, blatant violation of 3RR in the disputed article [210]. That's rather unconstructive behavior. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    • This has nothing to do with the issue about the 2016 Nice attack being terrorism in the first place. I only came to post this ANI discussion because I noticed your recent general history of disruptive and aggressive behavior, and not just in regards to the Nice attack matter. Also, you claim I am abusing the UW-template on your talk page, even though I only did it once, using Template:Uw-vandalism1, which does not outwardly declare edits as vandalism and whose purpose is for "unintentional vandalism/test". Also, in regards to the List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 article, I have created a talk page discussion about the Nice attack matter, which, surprisingly, did not receive any responses. Parsley Man (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Interesting thing is that you tell me to assume good faith, while you write off disputes as vandalism. Your inapproprite user warning for vandalism told me everything about your spirit for solving issues like this. Your obvious arrogance is ultimately why I don't want to discuss with you and you can have the article for yourself. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, excuse me for not knowing what other user warning templates to use. I don't know if you're referring to the specific message I sent you (that you then deleted) or my tendency to message any IP users in general, but I only sent you one message, and the template I used was the most lenient template I could find. But you removed it under the grounds of WP:HARASSMENT, even though it was the first time I've ever stepped foot into your talk page. And this is not about WP:OWNERSHIP of a certain article, it's about what content is acceptable and what we should preferably be doing if there is a content dispute. Certainly it's not edit-warring and personal attacks and ANI discussions. Parsley Man (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
          • You shouldn't have sent that template. You could simply have left a message written by yourself maybe ? , and not using templates that you don't understand/use indiscriminately/or whatever. If you didn't send the template, we wouldn't have this useless discussion. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
            • First off, I will have to correct myself; the template I sent you was actually Template:Uw-disruptive1, which was still a very appropriate template to send, since it is not outright declaring your actions as disruptive and is clearly meant to be a friendly, Level 1-type of warning. In addition, I did actually write my own message to you, using an option that comes with the template in which you can write additional material if and when necessary. This is what I said in that additional message (if you do not believe me, check the diff I just provided):

"Or go to the relevant discussion at Talk:2016 Nice attack. Please discuss it first before reverting edits wildly. Another IP user was blocked for edit-warring for the same reason."

But in response, you removed my entire message and claimed WP:HARASSMENT even though it was my first time directly contacting you.

• • • • • • • • Still the same issue, you're edit warring on the mentioned article, but then I get brushed away with a careless "disruptive editing" template. That's abusing templates, and I felt harrassed from it (no, didn't know about the "multiple offense" criterion until now). You've abused uw-templates against me, and that's just it. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
                • You didn't read my earlier response, did you? I will repeat myself: that template I sent you is not outright declaring your actions as disruptive and is clearly meant to be a friendly, Level 1-type of warning. It gets serious with Template:Uw-disruptive2 and onward. I'm not seeing how the template I sent you was meant to be more aggressive than it let on. Also, the template recommended you to send me a message on my talk page if you had a question or think I made a mistake. Frankly, this whole thing could've easily been avoided if you heeded that recommendation and discussed the matter about the 2016 Nice attack being terrorism. Or if you heeded my additional message and went to the talk page to discuss the matter. Parsley Man (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't get what's WP:CIVIL about his smearing campaign. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    • "Smearing campaign"? You clearly abused WP:HARASSMENT, which Mr rnddude verified earlier was a problem. Parsley Man (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
      • And you're reporting me of stuff that's none of your business, considering your anger following the Nice attack dispute and your own history of misconduct. That's not constructive behavior of solving the dispute, that's being childish and holding a grudge towards me. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Yet you falsely claim WP:HARASSMENT and then proceed to commit personal attacks on this very discussion instead of being civil... Tell me how you're being constructive. Parsley Man (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
          • False vandalism accusations, aren't those personal attacks? Mentioning my "behavior as ignorant", making subtle ban threats etc. Look, I'm trying to get you to mind your own business, as I'm not interested in further discussion on the article. I follow the advice of WP:GRUDGE: " ... "don't interact with this other editor" may be something to try in these cases." My goal is that we try this both. As things are now, we're not going to solve anything because of the heated atmosphere. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Now you're abusing WP:GRUDGE. This is in no way personal for me. Abusing WP:HARASSMENT as a rationale for removing user warnings ([211] [212] [213] [214]) was clearly enough to warrant an ANI discussion. And you are being quite contradictory: if you were trying to following the advice of WP:GRUDGE, you wouldn't have dug your hole deeper by delivering these personal attacks (whether you believe it or not, at least some of your previous comments DO qualify as personal attacks). Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
              • Wow, I'm sorry that I'm defending myself against your attacks. No personal thing? Umm.. why are you trying to get me banned for something you weren't involved at all? Look: I propose no interaction between us from this point. That's constructive behavior. I shall not answer further comments of you, as it leads nowhere. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
                • I would've taken your proposal had you not committed personal attacks against me in this very discussion and were instead more civil in your responses... Parsley Man (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - I was tempted to vote oppose as a part of this can be considered misunderstanding. However, the IP consistently makes bad faith accusations against other editors. They should not have referred to ParsleyMan's warning template as "rv Harassment" as that is not what it is - I've seen abuse of templates where an editor gets 50 of them in an hour, that's far closer to harrassment than what the IP receives is. Secondly when reverting an edit they must employ better reasoning than just quoting "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" as it suits them. I mentioned it before, what affects one article does not automatically translate to another article, so ParsleyMan - after the fact - went and did the right thing and started a discussion on the correct talk page. I also said that I wouldn't challenge them if they reverted me back. My reason for this was to allow for an EW check, if somebody else reverted ParsleyMan and they again reverted back that would be an EW offence and I personally want to avoid EW so didn't engage in it myself. So far ParsleyMan's revert of me hasn't been challenged which means either nobody has noticed or nobody cares. On the bright side at least the IP is avoiding edit-warring. All in all and as a tl;dr - I'll oppose the motion for a block if the IP a) acknowledges that claiming WP:HARASSMENT without substantial evidence is a WP:NPA violation (or if they were unaware of this, acknowledge that they now are) and b) agrees to post better more reasonable edit summaries and avoid entering conflicts with other editors for little reason. You may think you're backing out of this discussion but in your posts on this page all you've done is enflame it. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course, my edit summaries could be much better. Didn't know about the multiple offense criterion though, so yes, it was a mistake. It was a not thought-through quick reaction to feeling annoyed by his user warning template after him engaging in an edit war on the article [215], and nobody sanctioning him for this behavior. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• 80.63.3.167; Didn't know about the multiple offense criterion, well it's not so much a criterion per se just that harassment is generally not a one-off incident. For example, a guy walks up to you and says your a dick, the guy is clearly a twat but more or less you'll just shrug it off and keep walking, on the other hand if this same guy now decides to follow you around and continue to abuse you it becomes very apparent harassment. Refer to the very first sentence of WP:HARASSMENT - Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior (emphasis mine). Outing is one example of a one-off instantly blockable harassing offence, a template, however, not so much. Other than that, I hope you put more effort into your edit summaries and avoid potentially inflammatory language - also from WP:HARASSMENT; Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. One last thing; t was a not thought-through quick reaction to feeling annoyed by his user warning template after him engaging in an edit war on the article [16], and nobody sanctioning him for this behavior. This is simply explainable, usually edit-warring offences are reported at WP:AN/EW. There is however a general threshold for editwarring and that is; no more than three reverts in 24 hours on any single page. The important part here is more, ParsleyMan had exactly three reverts over any single 24 hour period and a total of five reverts across three weeks. This is indicative of a trend towards edit-warring, but, whether it is actioned upon is down to admin discretion. If Parsley had continued to revert after the third revert I would have posted a editwarring warning to their page - for their sake to avoid AN/EW - but I don't like requesting admin intervention where I don't think it would be necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Why put me in spam

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

---

Hello! why you put my name in spam. i know i along minutes later to make minor formatting changes. i check that now. but i did't know these ips are spamming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ayesha Hussain (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Ayesha Hussain: There may be a very valid explanation why you are editing after the IPs, but please explain that here, or at the bottom of that thread. The IPs certainly appear to be spamming. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: i just fixing the page. like removing brackets of pages that not exist, fixing dead link and date issues. i never thought about these ips — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ayesha Hussain (talk • contribs) 09:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think what we need here are some bons mots from EEng. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't work well under pressure. EEng 15:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• This relates to WT:WikiProject Spam#Spam ring and a claim of spam activity concerning Dr. Ayesha Hussain (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

For this discussion to progress, we would need to know what edits to which article caused KH-1 (talk · contribs) to associate this user with the spam ring. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Why :@KH-1: not responding on my issues. im still waiting. Dr. Ayesha Hussain (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on an inspection of the pattern of the edits of Dr. Ayesha Hussain, I recommend she be indeffed immediately as WP:NOTHERE. She consistenty turns up within 3 minutes of spam links being inserted into articles to amend said spam in some way - the pattern clear at, for instance [216], [217], [218]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef for NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block per that Spam looking User Page alone! I wonder, doesn't her User Page fall under something CSD G12 or something? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 22:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that her user page is what G11 (or, more relevantly, U5) has in mind. Feel free to take it to Miscellany for deletion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Alexis Ivanov

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

---

About a month ago, I blocked Alexis Ivanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one month for personal attacks at Talk:Mohamed Elneny against Qed237. Ivanov's previous block for disruption in January was for two weeks, and based on his previous trips here to ANI (here, here, here, and here) I felt one month was a proper escalation, designed solely to stop continuing attacks and disruption to the encyclopedia. LouisAragon did ask me about it (rather than rehash those diffs of personal attacks here, I'll simply point to that section), and I was happy to explain. Ivanov did not appeal the block during its duration.

Now that the block has expired, however, he can't drop the stick. He started a section on my talk page asking about the block, which is fine, of course. I pointed him to my explanation to LouisAragon, said I have nothing to add to that, because I don't, and suggested he bring it here for review (as I did to LouisAragon shortly after I placed the block).

That's not good enough for Ivanov, apparently, because he's insisting I've 'wronged' him. He's leaving message after message on my talk saying basically the same thing over and over, and his tone is becoming louder and more shrill. I don't normally take issue with this kind of thing, but his style of address to me ("Miss Katie") is condescending and designed to intimidate, particularly given his comment that "you just don't know how angry you made me." The block has expired, he didn't appeal it while it was in place, and I'm not sure what solution he wants.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, so rather than keep this all on my talk page, and since he will not bring it here as I have advised him to do, I'm doing it myself. Did I abuse my discretion as an administrator? Katie^talk 10:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

1 month is well within discretion for an escalating block for the same issues as previously. With the only real argument against it that their previous block was in January - so you could have chosen a lesser length and no one would have batted an eye either. As civility is an ongoing issue with the editor (as evidenced by the multiple ANI requests) you could probably have blocked longer and still justified it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Good block Katie - seen the messages on your talk, and frankly if a blunt stop it (after some tremendous patience!) doesn't get them to drop it, I'm not really sure what will. @Alexis Ivanov: what exactly is is you'd like to see happen here? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Good block. He definitely needs to drop the stick. `Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, the block is sound. Now he just needs to be reblocked on the grounds of WP:BATTLEGROUND. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Indeed Samtar it was a good block, there is no excuse for my action as you can see with the lack of appeal, I have issue that the other user was not blocked, I also have issue with the way Katie misrepresented my views as an instigator, and painted me as a common vandal and using the block log as some form of criminal report. I also have issue with the lack of warning and her inability to communicate with me after the block occurred. So you can understand why I'm furious. @Jauerback: I'm not carrying any stick, I'm in position of powers, looking for answers and having justice to be served after you have been wronged is not carrying a stick with all due respect to you. @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I don't know what to stay to that, you want me to get reblocked based on what? Should I keep my mouth shut to satisfy you? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: (edit conflict × 2) I think it would be fair to say everyone can understand a level of frustration which would be caused by the situation - Katie has, however, explained her reasoning here. I believe the explanation can be boiled down to the fact that we do not use blocks as a form of punishment. Do you agree that blocking Qed would have just been punitive? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Your block log is relevant when you have been blocked for the same issues. Its the basis of the escalating block system. It *is* a report of your misbehaviour and it is entirely justified to refer to it when you have been blocked previously for the same misbehaviour.

2. Blocks are preventative not punitive. Katie was entirely justified in blocking the party who was continuing the disruption, rather than one who had ceased.

3. You have had plenty of warnings previously. When you have been blocked for violating policy, it is not required to specifically warn you if you repeat the behaviour that led to the block.

4. Katie has accounted for her block per WP:ADMINACCT. She gave you a response both promptly and civilly.

5. Generally at this point yes, it would be best if you did keep your mouth shut *for your own good* as there is unlikely to be any pleasant outcome of this thread for you.

So to sum up, you were blocked, Katie explained why you were blocked. The lack of blocking on anyone else is irrelevant to *your* block, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes my block is relevant, but the time period was very harsh and cruel. It was too long, you have said it yourself, my last block was in January. And I have never been blocked since, even with the amount of ANIs that have proved nothing against me or else admins would have blocked me. I don't like how Katie is using my block log as way to block me, on top of that, when QED called her to block me, he called her for Vandalism. Apples and Oranges.

2. I had ceased already when Mr.Douts advised me to drop it, QED instigating me and came back to the talk page, I had to reply, yet I'm the bad guy in her picture. She posted three evidence, and I brought right back three other evidence to show that QED was the one instigating and continuing the drama. Totally unfair how she treated me.

3. I have never received any warning from her of an imminent block.

4. She never gave me a response, you can go back to my talk page, I didn't remove anything, even before I was thinking of appeal, I was thinking why hasn't the other party being blocked for the same thing I was blocked for. She didn't respond, so I had no faith in any appeal or any accountability. She can wield her power as much as she want with no accountability, that is what it seemed like. And if you are talking about a response to another user as she has stated before, that doesn't count, because I have my own questions I raised different than other users. She didn't respect me in that regard. A total slap in my face.

5. I would rather stand up and voiced my concern than shut up, it is blatant disregard to other users, if they can't acquire answers from the admins. And at the end of the day she is going to use my block log again to paint me a negative image so my case will not be furthered.

6. Why are you speaking in her behalf, her explanation were minuscule and lacked detail. The lack of blocking towards other party, is very much RELEVANT to my case, as it is clear Katie sided with one party when they called her up to block me without any warning. That is what happened, the other party went to the vandalism page and notified any admin to block me, and she just did, with no warning and no communication, so I hope you understand my frustration in that regard. I was personally attacked by the other party and they were never blocked, how is that not blatant double standard, even another user saw that double standard and questioned Katie's misguided conduct towards me.

7. I just don't understand how Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK is relevant in this case. First of all where is the natural end? second how do you identify a winner or looser if a user wants answers from an admin. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll offer an opinion just on that last point. If people put their disputes behind them and everyone gets back to editing, Wikipedia is the winner. But if people carry on arguing way past the point of anything constructive, Wikipedia is the loser. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

*Note For information, the 'discussion' continues on Qed237's talk page. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at my talkpage is currently civil without any attacks, despite our history, and is now more a discussion about an unrelated article. I would not at this point see it as a part of this discussion or that this discussion is continuing on my talkpage as the editor has not talked anything about his recent block. Qed237 (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: Obviously I am involved and see this from my point of view, but I will offer my view to you and perhaps it may give you some answers. I am not interested in arguing with you so if that happens I will stop editing this discussion, but of course if you are respectful I can answer questions. Are you interested in my answers so I should take the time and write them down? Qed237 (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: You can do what you want, nobody is holding you back. Feel free to write. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, I just dont want to make the situation worse.

1. If you look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy and especially the Duration of blocks-section you can see that one of the things for admins to consider is whether the user has engaged in that behavior before, which is why the block log is used. Also it states incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations; (my bolding) and seeing that your most recent block was for two weeks, it is reasonable (and standard) that the next block is one month. Most likely if you would resort to personal attacks again, the standard (from what I have seen) is 3 months next time (depending on the severity of the attack). The block length are almost always escalated for repeated offense so you having 31hours followed by 1 weeks, 2 weeks and 1 month is normal.

2. User:Douts told us both to drop this now on 19:36, 3 October 2016. but at that time the report had already been filed for calling me incompetent and for "Quid" (diff) after a final warning for personal attacks (diff) and the fact that I had told you to not call me "Quid" (diff) The final warning was for incorrectly calling me a "teenager" with hormone issues (diff) (I am far from it) and there was no evidence that you had stopped, instead you continued (diff) even when you were at AIV. There was no indication of you stopping.

3. You dont have to be warned before being blocked, WP:BEFOREBLOCK, but as proven above you had been given a final warning as well as being blocked previously for it so you should have known a block was possible. The person activating the block has no responsibility to warn you first, given the history and previous warnings. It was evident that you have (or should have) an understanding not to do personal attacks.

4. She never responded to you at your talkpage so I understand that you asked here at her talkpage, but then she did answer you by likning to a discussion where she explained herself. That is more than enough.

5. When a discussion is not likely to improve it is best to drop the stick and move on, User:KrakatoaKatie made it clear she wont answer more and that you should go here, then do it instead of keep harrassing here at her talkpage. Your block length was reasonable (motivation above in 1.).

6. KrakatoaKatie made it very clear that she had already given an explanation (which you obviously are not happy with), so others are just trying to help by answering your questions. They dont have to, so be thankful that they take their time to do this.

7. It is relevant to be able to just let things go sometimes. There is always questions in life that never will get answered.

Finally, regarding the diffs you provided of me ([219], [220], [221]), the first one was a response to you saying "Good job son." (I am not your son) as well as the teenager comment (see above). The second one is an advice, seeing you keep on with personal attacks and with your history someday you will get blocked. The last diff I can not understand what was wrong with it. Qed237 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: There you go. Qed237 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

1. My recent block before Katie's block was more than 8 months ago. So let me get this straight of this arbitrary rule, if I commit a mistake in the next decade I should for example be blocked 2 months?? How is that not harsh punishment? And you say "Most likely if you would resort to personal attacks again" and why would I do that, you have done the same thing you walked scot-free after making a deal with Katie, that is my main issue, and the secondary issue is the lack of warning, and no communication between the user and the admin.

2. "and there was no evidence that you had stopped" That is your first lie right there, with all due respect, at 1:30 I left the discussion and drama with no intention in coming back but less than 4 and half hours later you came back instigating me and I had to reply back to protect my image and honor. You had to put the oil in the fire because of a matter that occurred before 1:30 the time I left on third of October. In fact if Katie was wise and smart she would have blocked you. I made intention clear to douts. You are the one that revived it, regardless of if you put up warning or a report. So please I urge you not to lie. There was indeed a clear indication of me leaving the matter.

3. I wasn't given any warning of imminent block or any warning of an admin with the ability to block. Even hypothetically if that was true that Katie couldn't give me any warning, she could have at least acted like a decent human being and communicated back to me when I pinged her in my talk page to understand why you were not blocked yourself. I had to suffer through humiliation and anger because of her action. And now she says I should have appealed? Appeal to where, it would have fallen on deaf ears.

4. My inquiry in her talk-page was 30 days, it was my first action I believe after being blocked, she never responded to my question 30 days earlier in my talk page, a complete sign of disrespect. Her answer was weak and lacked detail as I have said before and she also misrepresented me, her incompetency was shown by another user, I was surprised seeing that, but I believe I have the ability to ask questions and recieve the answers by myself, and not only that I asked questions that was no raised in that discussion, dodging me yet again.

5. It is not being improved because the other party is hiding from me. And once I called them out for their mistake they will not re-appear and yell harassment at my ear. So let me get this, ask a question to an admin and if you receive no answer, just shut up and act like nothing happened. I can't do that.

6. I'm not thankful, I'm very angry how she treated me. She never answered anything instead she brought her lawyers and backers to back her up.

7. Yes it seems I have to let go, and accept the system is corrupt. Maybe in the future I will find way for Katie to pay for her crimes. (edit: by bringing it high-level admins to talk to her, some of you are insinuating dark thoughts.)

8. On the first diff, I was congratulating on updating the infobox and gave you props. Son was not a literal term. The second diff was because of your threat in the Elneny page and in my talk page. The third diff was because you called my edit disruptive, yet they stand tall now in the page now, thanks to me. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Dude, just drop it, before you actually get arrested...TJH2018talk 17:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Arrested by who? Drop what? Who are you to talk to me ? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: Possibly this: 'I will find way for Katie to pay for her crimes'- What the F do you MEan by that??? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It means get a higher level admin to talk to her, what do you think it means. As of now this ANI is waste of time and unproductive. Not only that she is not participating. She basically tricked me into hanging around here and talking to her backers. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to file an Arbcom case, that page is right here. You're continuing this nonsense on my talk page, saying I tricked you somehow into getting people to back me when I practically pleaded with you to start this process yourself. As I said before, you have good contributions to make here, but I'm becoming tired of these accusations and threats, the IDHT behavior, and your intransigence. Please stop before you get indefinitely blocked. Katie^talk 18:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I was in no rush to start an ANI, I was giving you a time to think about it. How can I make a contribution when I have a block log that says I was blocked for one month, and the other party was never blocked, I received a cruel and unusual punishment, while the other party walked freely. Yes you actually tricked me, I received no viable answers and wasted my time, while you abandoned ship. IDHT requires you to make a strong point, you failed to do that, how many Wikipedia guidelines are you going to get from your pocket ??? And now you are threatening me with an "indefinitely block" so I can be silent and suffer through humiliation once again. Ask the admin questions and you might get blocked, good precedence. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note I've instructed Alexis Ivanov to stop pinging KrakatoaKatie, and stop leaving messages on her talk page. If it continues, I will block. I don't care if they continue posting to this thread seeking other people's opinion on the block (and the lack of a block on QED), but WP:ADMINACCT has been satisfied. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Yes thank you for the threat, I will make sure not to cross your line and follow your order diligently. When was "WP:ADMINACCT" satisfied ? I don't see no jury or judge ? I see her friends and backers, Katie can do no wrong right, is that correct sir? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not correct, but I'll need you to ask specific, non-rhetorical questions if you want an actual answer to something. "Katie can do no wrong right, is that correct sir?" is something you "ask" when you're angry and want to vent, not if you're seeking information. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeking information, but when there are friends and backers protecting her, it seems from an outsider perspective that she can make no mistake. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There are no such things as juries and judges here (well there's ArbCom, but this issue wont get to them). There are no "higher level admins" here, we're all the same, and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. Pretty much every admin would have blocked you in the situation; some might have blocked Qed237 as well, and some might not have. Katie didn't, another admin might have. If you'd submitted an unblock appeal at the time, some admins might have unblocked you, although I suspect most wouldn't. But now you are going to achieve nothing here - we clearly are not going to block Qed237 a month after the fact, Katie is not going to face any sanctions (because the block was reasonable, as you admit yourself), so I don't understand what admin action you are asking for. What I do see, though, is that you are getting more and more angry, and I worry that eventually you'll say something that leads an admin to look at your previous block log and think "do we need this?". That's not what I (or anyone else) wants, so I'll just say now - please drop it. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It's good that Katie blocked me, I would have blocked myself if I was in her shoes, I just think the second party should have been blocked also, that is my main and primary concern. If QED will not be blocked since he is being protected by Katie and her friends, excellent, and if Katie is not going to face sanctions which is excellent too, we all love some corruption here and there, well at least remove the one month unjustified block that I had. Also before the thought of appealing I asked Katie a question and she ignored me, I suspect no sanction or punishment for her, she can utilize her power as she wants I guess. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov, blocks cannot be "removed". You've had your say, repeatedly; time to move on. Tiderolls 19:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Alexis Ivanov: As said above, you have had your say and many other editors have answered. It was not the answer you wanted and further discussion will not make it the answer you want. You now have three choices before you; 1) drop it, move on and forget about it 2) be angry, let it fester and become bitter about it, seek revenge or whatnot and ultimately get blocked forever 3) continue arguing here until your anger overflows and you get blocked. I strongly suggest you choose #1 and request this thread be closed. This is Wikipedia and nothing is important enough here to justify your ongoing bitterness. Jbh^Talk 19:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Jean-Michel and his team

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

---

Jean-Michel and his team is an article about "a controversial Evangelical-oriented new religious movement founded in 1975". User:Christof Bucherer has made a succession of edits including phrases in the article such as:-
"this is not a fair comparison, since we here in Switzerland are not in America, where everything is big, Hamburgers are big, people are big"[222]
"My main criticism here is, that.. " "Tell me which American person is interested to read these French authors!?"[223]
"Such an article about a person for his religeous beliefs in Switzerland is forbidden. (The Racism Penal Code Art. 261 bis StGB, against their 1. race, 2. ethnic belonging or 2. religion)" [224]
"You removed my viewpoint without discussion. It is on my server and in the internet in Google search engine and does not throw a good light on en.Wikipedia-org. Jean Michel is on facebook and you can query to him personally. He is informed by me and is happy relieved about my action! I will delete this article from the server, if you don't do yourselves. Since Jean Michel has not the time to draw you to Swiss court!"[225]

I do not know if this is seen as a legal threat? There are several such rants and, despite pointing out that comments and discussion take place on the Talk page, he has continued to paste his opinions on the talk article page. - Arjayay (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

References

You mean "he has continued to paste his opinions in the article itself". MPS1992 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

After careful re-reading of the comments, my conclusion is that this is not a legal threat -- even though it reads very like one! Instead, the user is threatening to do something that they are unable to do, namely delete the Wikipedia article, in a bizarre belief that it is on "their" server.

We should call their bluff and invite them to go ahead with magically deleting an article without being an administrator. Is there some sort of protection we can put on the article that will allow others, but not them, to edit? Then they will have to go to the talk page.

At the same time we should also consider WP:DOLT, since Jean-Michel is apparently alive? Some BLP-relevant statements in the article look unsourced or weakly sourced. MPS1992 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This is ironical: "since Jean-Michel is apparently alive"! First of all, you have a problem with spelling right, his name is Jean Michel, secondly I did not state my opinion today, but delivered Jean Michels response in French (since he is not so good in English). I already earlier stated, that according to Swiss law it is an offence of what you are doing! According to Swiss law (where the movement took place), it is customary, that a contrary opinion of the mentioned person should be published, so, that everyone may judge by himself who is right. But what you are doing, is authoritarian and not democratic. I thought, you live in a democratic country, if I may assume, that you are from America. If I cite our Swiss laws, it means, that you should respect them. They are not a legal threat, since I don't have the time and the means to go to court with any author here. You mention, that I discussed issues on the article page. Yes, I did, but this mainly only in my second posting, because nobody seemed to take notice! I don't believe that the article is on my server, for this reason I have put it on mine and into Google! I can delete this page and in minutes you are going to reinstall the former version, if it is not your computer who does it! So, don't think I am stupid! But I say and keep on saying, that you have not one single link in English! Who of you only-English-speakers are going to understand what these pages or videos say! I was very amused about the old video you are presenting. But I doubt, that you are even aware of it that you do that! You don't understand, what is being said in the video and you presumably don't know enough French to even find it on that server! This makes me laugh! --Christof Bucherer (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• There are so many issues here I don't know where to begin. I suppose WP:CIR would cover a lot though. Clearly this editor does not understand what Wikipedia is or how we operate. Until that changes their editing, at least on this topic, is likely to continue to be disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ad Orientem here. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in Christof Bucherer in how things work. @Christof Buchere:, you need to have a solid read of WP:RS, that's first. Second, you need to read WP:CONSENSUS. What is legal or illegal according to Swiss law is completely inapplicable here because the Foundation servers, where Wikipedia is hosted, are housed in the US, therefore US law supersedes Swiss Law. If you are able to prove that there are Foundation servers in Switzerland, then your comment may apply, but that is not the case. The article is housed on the servers and not on anyone's hard drive, although editors are free to keep copies of their hard drive if they so wish. When an article is deleted, it is not completely removed from the servers, it is rendered invisible to regular editors but administrators are still able to view the deleted versions so they can undelete the article, i.e make visible, in the event a community discussion concludes that this should be done. English links and sources are perfectly valid sources to use, as long as they are reliable. As long as someone has checked that the content verifies the statement being entered into the article, then a non English source is valid.

In summary, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding on some of the applicable policies. Given how young your account here is, this is not surprising. It would be advisable to read up on a variety of the governing policies here. Some leeway is given to new accounts, but continuing to behave the way you are now is disruptive and you will find the administrators will be quick to act on that. Blackmane (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked Christof Bucherer due to serious NPOV issues but also because he flat out denies having written The Decisive Hour of Christian Missions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a spam article, but the logs show that he did indeed create it at 21:27 on October 16, 2016. This is a WP:CIR issue as well as NPOV and promotion. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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

POV pushing IP on Jimmy Page

I recently full-protected Jimmy Page's article after an edit war broke out over some unpleasant and potentially BLP-violating content. The conversation on the talk page hasn't really got anywhere except to point out that the main antagonist in the debate, a hopping IPv6 editor, is too trustworthy on using Richard Cole as a source and taking disagreement quite personally. Going forward, I think the article should be long-term pending changes protected when the full-protection expires tonight, but I've stuck my 2c worth on the talk page enough now to think I would be too WP:INVOLVED to take action myself, and would rather another admin did it. (Since the IP changes multiple times a day, I have not notified them on any previous talk page as I don't think it would be read). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. For what it is worth, I did not find your contributions too WP:INVOLVED. This controversy has been going on since 2013. From the exchange on the Talk page it is clear that the IP is pushing his own point of view and not here to try and find consensus. Let's ask @Drmies: to glance over it. Karst (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Me? Why? Because I come from the land of ice and snow? Indefinite semi-protection applied, for reasons (briefly) laid out on talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think the indef semi-protection is warranted (God kills a kitten every time that happens). A minute of web search found decent sourcing for the disputed incident. I left some comments on the talk page, and made an attempt to ask 2605:* (the ipv6 editor) to reach a compromise. There was relatively little difference between the consensus version of July 2016 and the extra words that 2605 wanted to add at the time. The main issue was that 2605 wanted to SYNTHesize that the Page-Mattix relationship was "illegal" when the sources used then didn't use that word. But other sources do use it so it seems simplest to just cite one (with in-text attribution). Pamela Des Barres is probably the best-known groupie historian and she uses the word illegal in her book (mentioned on article's talk page). Drmies and/or other admins, could you look in on the page over the next few days and unprotect if the problem settles down? Typing "Lori Mattix" into youtube search finds tons of additional material that I'm not masochistic enough to watch. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Des Barres is not a neutral source - she is a jilted ex-lover of Page. YouTube is not considered a reliable source. 172.10.43.16 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd dispute that characterization of Des Barres (she stayed friendly with Page after they split) but that's a content matter, that shouldn't be locked up by protecting the article. Similarly with the stuff shown in the VH1 documentary. Youtube has nothing to do with it, it's just a place where you can view the documentary if you want to. The main thing is to treat the facts neutrally. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Basically over a period of time various IPs have edit-warred to exaggerate claims of illegality despite the source used not making such claims. Its also an event that the subject has neither been charged with, investigated for, questioned or in fact had any legal outcome at all. So over-emphasising the 'illegal' aspects is a clear violation of UNDUE when not impacting on the BLP aspects. A relatively stable consensus has been achieved over the years to mention the incident, but to not go into tabloid-level salacious detail and use neutral wording. I didnt think it was likely indef semi-prot would be granted so I have not applied for it in the past, but it is an ongoing problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Concur with indef semi-protection. There are serious BLP problems with insinuating that someone's conduct was illegal or a crime when they have never been charged, let alone convicted of any wrongdoing. We don't get to make that call. The IP should also be warned for accusing people of COI without evidence. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• I saw this thread yesterday and left a comment on the article's talk page and now have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet. It's a crying shame editor's are allowed to do this without any evidence or repercussions.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• The edit war of July 2016 that I looked at (links on talk page) didn't want to insert a lot of unverified material other than inserting the word "illegal" (the other phrasing changes weren't extensive and seemed resolvable by discussion). I agree that the people trying to put in these changes seemed to be axe-grinding. But the illegality of the affair and the participants' concern about it at the time are well-documented, e.g. Pamela Des Barres, Let's Spend the Night Together (2007), p. 182:

Lori says Jimmy called her every day when he got back to England, and in 1975 when Zeppelin played Madison Square Garden, he flew her to New York to stay with him at the Drake Hotel. "That was when their gig money got stolen and the FBI was investigating. Everybody was paranoid about me being around because I was underage. Zeppelin's manager was flipping out. He said, `You've gotta send her home. She can't be at the hotel with the FBI sniffing around.' ... "

This is in contrast with the vast quantities of drugs that rock musicians and concertgoers used in those days, whose illegality nobody has ever cared about and which are discussed today without any sense of controversy or shame. So I think that the underage issue is notable and should be mentioned (neutrally, with citations) in the article's description of the affair if the affair is included at all. And I think Mattix should be listed under "partners" since according to Des Barres (p. 181), the relationship went on for more than two years. The protection seems like using technical tools to win a content dispute, not nice. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Page has never been charged (and I doubt he would be). Trial by innuendo is not acceptable on Wikipedia. 172.10.43.16 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No one is insinuating that he was ever charged. What is well documented is that he was once in a situation that was seen as legally hazardous enough to cause a stir within his organization at the time, though in the end, nothing happened to him over it. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

And that really is too vague. The issue here was that the anon IP was POV pushing and not willing to compromise. And that this issue had been going on since 2013. Hence my request for a permanent protection. Karst (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

SlitherioFan2016 breaching 1-month page ban by editing while logged out

• Motion picture rating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SlitherioFan2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#SlitherioFan2016_Socking.2Fedit-warring.2Fusing_misleading_edit_summaries, editor SlitherioFan2016 entered into arrangement with administrator EdJohnston (see [226]) to not edit Motion picture rating system at all for 1 month on October 25, 2016. However, following page protection ending at the article today it appears that SlitherioFan2016 has continued his behavior of editing the article while logged out to reinstate his preferred version of the article:

• Version 1 by SlitherioFan2016 on October 24
• Version 2 by 101.174.152.240 on November 7
• This is the difference between the two versions: [227]

He avoided a block by making an explicit promise to not edit the article for 1 month and he has not honored this pledge. In fact he has carried out the edit logged out in order to evade detection. I appreciate it is not my place to recommend sanctions, but he has clearly abused the trust of an administrator and I think he should serve out the rest of the 1 month period with a block now he has proven he cannot be trusted. Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Betty, you are reporting an edit by an IP that you assume to be SlitherioFan2016. I am restoring the semiprotection on Motion picture rating system. Even if the IP 101.174.152.240 is a different person they should not be reverting while an RfC is in progress. If the RfC is complete, you could ask for it to be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, you are, in this case, correct. The IP address 101.174.152.240 isn't me! Since I got a sock puppetry investigation last month I have been logged in at all times. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me or did User:EdJohnston not actually say whether he believes the IP was you one way or the other? Unless more evidence surfaces, I think we just have to take your word for it because CU's aren't allowed tell us whether it was you. But that's just my opinion -- if the community, or any random sysop, determines that you were probably logging out to get around your ban, my opinion won't change that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I do have one comment about this situation, however, the IP has not altered the color scheme. The said RfC is concerning color contrasting issues, while the IP just added some notes to the end section of each country on the comparison table. How does that have to do with the color scheme? It does not seem to me that it is affecting the RfC at all. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)