Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Battle of France

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

---

Disruptive Infobox edits in the Battle of France article by User:KevinNinja reviving an old dispute. Please scrutinise. Keith-264 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, which should be discussed and resolved on the talk-page. The contested edits do not seem very controversial to me, but both of you need to mind the 3RR-cliff. No admin-tools required, IMHO.Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I don't know. If someone is edit-warring to insert material that consensus had already established to leave out, as the OP implies, that is potentially an issue for ANI. That said, the lack of evidence provided that this is "reviving an old dispute" and the request for "scrutinization" makes me skeptical. @Keith-264: Can you provide details? Preferably in the form of diffs? On the face of it, KevinNinja's version looks like the better one (note that I'm not a scholar of French history -- I took one course in college and watched another on YouTube). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Everybody currently edit-warring on that article is aware of WP:EW. It is, after all, only a month since Dennis Brown fully protected the article after another edit war (also involving Keith-264), stating that 'If it goes back to edit warring after a week, I will hand out week long blocks. Everyone involved is way too experienced here for this kind of silly stuff.'

There are some rather short memories there. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: I see all kinds of bickering on the TP, what I don't see is any consensus. The conflict has been brewing since last spring and bth sides have not reached (or moved towards) any form of compromise. Hence I still think it's an content dispute, with an edit-war as a result. Perfectly happy with the approach Dennis Brown announced. Kleuske (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not likely to protect again and will just block anyone warring. It isn't fair to other editors to keep locking it. KevinNinja needs to read WP:BRD. If someone removes material you add, it is up to you to take it to the talk page. The default is the status quo, so stop adding it back until something of a discussion can be had. I don't suggest anyone do anymore reverting until a discussion is had on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I came here sooner rather than later to avoid trouble, not cause it. At bottom the dispute is whether contents of the infobox should follow the guidance in Template:Infobox military conflict, which is unambiguous. The details are in the talk page ad nauseam. Despite the clarity of its contents I have compromised by leaving in the asinine "Decisive" German victory (it was anything but, according to the informal and impressionistic RS survey, which was about 15:6 for German victory) and only removing the extraneous bullet points. Other editors appeared to have been willing to settle for that until last night's edits. I asked for scrutiny because by posting here I have created a conflict of interest, something which I took to be obvious. Thank you for your comments Dennis but I am of the opinion now that an outsider should dictate the contents of the Result criterion. regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Then start an RFC on the talk page, that is the best way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I fear that it would be pointless, as some of the comments above demonstrate but thanks for the suggestion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

An RFC, if done properly, would attract outside opinions since it is advertised outside of that talk page. That is the point, to get outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dennis Brown: Re "The default is the status quo": Technically, the default is the shorter version with less information, since WP:BRD is an essay while WP:BURDEN is a policy. I must emphasize that in this case you are right, as the shorter version is also the status quo, but I feel the need to point this out every time someone says something that, on its face, implies that an unsourced claim needs to stay in, as long as someone wants it in, until there is talk page consensus to remove it, solely because it survived unsourced in the article for a certain amount of time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The existing version that has stood for a time is assumed to have WP:consensus. I shouldn't have to explain this, and I'm trying to figure out why you keep commenting on discussions you aren't involved with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: No. Lots of articles have almost no community oversight and the "status quo" was the work of one editor who is ignorant of our content policies. As I said above, this is a general point, and does not appear to apply to Battle of France article. As for your last comment: Umm... why would you wonder about that? ANI is filled with non-admins who comment on a larger number of threads they are not involved with than I do. Many of them aren't even helpful or observant, and look like deliberate trolling. Indeed, in the past you have closed threads I was involved in apparently based on the opinions of such users. At least, unlike several others I could name, I look at the evidence and try to deliver an honest opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But that's a general explanation of why I feel free to comment on threads in which I am not involved. As for my specific motivations for getting especially involved in the past 2-3 weeks, it's a little complicated. I figured if I helped resolve a number of threads that appeared later than mine, someone would take notice and help me out with the Korean grammar-fascist who's been trolling me. This plan didn't wind up working out for me (the hread got archived a few days ago). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I defer to your greater experience but so far it has only multiplied the number of people taking sides. I noted on the BofF talk page that I was going to wait for 24 hours and will think over your suggestion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in taking sides, and given what DB said above, I'm not really inclined to comment on this thread any further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing with Dennis Brown, my version is a revised one with suggestions made by editors in the past (ie what points should be kept as important), and my version is also an improved version of what has stood FOR YEARS in the past. Keith keeps undoing for no apparent reason, and although I want his feedback, I obtain none. So, please stop wasting my time with this Keith, thanks... (I'll also note that there is no reason for you to undo my stuff, since result sections in multiple other GAs use pointers)

So to summarise, please stop creating conflict out of nothing, especially when you provide no reason for undoing my peer approved edits. KevinNinja (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See what I mean Dennis? KevinNinja ignored your suggestion to read WP:BRD and replied with broken record. Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See my edit on BOF/Talk: "You're just waiting here to create some sort of conflict, aren't you? The issue was never about the pointers, it was about the inclusion of 'decisive' in the result section. And now that you've lost that argument on consensus (and common sense), I suppose you're trying to create an issue out of something that was never an issue in the past, probably in order to assert some sort of weird edit dominance you feel you have."

Keith is just trying to do something that will win over some sort of edit superiority over the article so he can assert his biased and irrational views. Keith, how about instead of undoing all my edits without replying to the thread for reason (and going directly here to complain to the admins), you actually provide reason for why what stood for years in the past and what stands in hundreds of other GA's cannot be used in this article. Maybe you're the one to read WP:BRD, since you keep undoing my stuff without reason. Because, as I remember correctly, you were the one accused of edit warring by the admins last time, not me. And you're doing it again. KevinNinja (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• From reviewing the talk page it seems to me that Keith-264 is unwilling to accept the talk page consensus. Edits like "The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:13 am, 21 September 2016, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)") when all of the other editors seem to have come to agreement shows an inability to drops the stick. The reverts today seem to be a follow on of the consensus to come up with Aftermath bullet points established in the same thread this quote was taken from.

  If this behavior continues I would suggest a BOOMERANG and a break of three months from Battle of France for Keith-264. Jbh^Talk 17:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If you read back a little further, you will invalidate your conclusion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is a specific thread or part of a thread which shows differently, which the later threads do not invalidate, please link to it and I will reconsider. Jbh^Talk 17:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You could look here [1] or [2] (as an example of WP:uncivil that I'm trying to avoid). The facts are that the RS and the infobox criteria are indisputable. The Battle of France was a German victory partly because it was but mostly because most of the RS consulted put it like that. Plenty of editors agree but you'll have to look back to at least Archive four to see it. My and Kevin's historical opinions are irrelevant as I frequently point out. I want the RS view in the infobox according to the Template:Infobox military conflict criterion for result. Quite why anyone made a fuss in the first place I don't know but it has obscured the issue and the editors who are in consensus about German victory and no bullet points. Keith-264 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing there which changes my opinion. Right now consensus is against you. I suggest that you either drop it or start an RfC. The best option, in my opinion, would be drop it - if there are enough people who agree with you the change will be implemented anyway. If you think dropping it guarentees a "wrong version" that is a very strong indicator consensus is against you. Jbh^Talk 20:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Doing a little sampling, KevinNinja's version of [3] does seem to be common if you go back in time, which would indicate the burden is on Keith-264. I would remind Keith-264 that WP:4RR refers to *any* reverts, not just the same revert, and you are at 3RR as I write this. None of this required an admin, just looking at public diffs. As a fellow editor, I would read policy as saying leave the three lines in (which is the current state) and have a discussion or RFC. Even if a consensus decides to leave it out next week, nothing is damaged by it being there for now, as it does have support simply by having been there a while. Now, please move the discussion to the talk page, we are really done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble but the talk page and RFC will be futile; either the Template:Infobox military conflict: Result matters or it doesn't. I suggest you go back a little further in your sampling. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dennis Brown here (if not his opinions near the top of the thread regarding the general applicability of BRD and "implied consensus", and the precedence of BRD over BURDEN), and have gone ahead and opened the RFC. I am neutral on the result, and will probably refrain from further comment on the page. Cheers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[4] Request a ruling on the propriety of this edit. Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Ruling"? I'm not a judge, I can just give opinions or take action on policy violations and I have no idea what the problem is. If it is just because he said "for fuck's sake", I would say you are being overly sensitive. I've said worse, we all have when frustrated from time to time. Under no circumstances is that a violation of WP:NPA and I don't see it as particularly uncivil. It is just peppered exasperation. We don't censor here, after all. The content seemed to be his opinion regarding your edits and the problem they are causing. And they may be correct in stating you are working towards a topic ban. Was it something else I missed? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a figure of speech "for fuck's sake". I told you an RFC was futile now you're proving my point as well. Please stick to the point, which is that the latest outburst of abuse is the latest in a series, enough is enough. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Keith, you really don't get it. I feel for you, but you really don't understand. Someone saying "for fuck's sake" might not be optimum, but it isn't an attack, it isn't abuse. Sometimes people say words like that here. I think many would find that less offensive than your badgering at the RFC. Even when proof is put in your face, you argue against it, such as the long standing consensus at the article. You really are on the way to a topic ban or block, make no mistake about it, because people are tired of arguing with you when you won't listen to their perspective and simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your opinion. (ie: WP:IDHT) Maybe Wikipedia isn't for you, I don't know, but at the rate you are going, that choice will likely be taken from you before too long. As for the RFC, just glancing over the comments, it seems to be moving along just fine. Whether you think it is a waste of time or not, that is completely meaningless. This is how we do it here, so it is best to get used to it if you want to stick around. I'm a bit weary of this thread and you dragging up new offenses that aren't offenses, so I suggest you ponder the advice given here and just let others give their opinions in the RFC, and stay out of it, as you've already given your opinion more than once there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In view of you insulting my intelligence, threats, personal abuse, intimidation, failure to WP:AGF and flagrant bias I decline to engage further with you. Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example of how summarizing a whole article into a single word, for the sake of filling an infobox' parameter results into an intractable edit war. (1) The Westfeldzug (10 May - 25 June 1940) was decisive for the French Third Republic (who disappeared) ; (2) The same Westfeldzug was not sufficient to decide the issue of WWII, because the issue of a World War is decided at the World scale. Both of these assertions are clear, and unchallenged. Why not trying "result=decisive, but not sufficiently"... or simply avoiding this parameter ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not try not opening another front in the interminable discussion about the BoF infobox here. This is properly a discussion about which Kevin/Keith is doing more to try our patience, not whether the German's victory was decisive or merely a victory (or, according to one Keith, something that is so very far from a victory that it needs to be explained in the aftermath section.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Pldx1: leave me the hell alone already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Tagishsimon. I will not deny that "which Kevin/Keith is doing more to try our patience" is an interesting question. But, in my opinion, a better question would be: "what can be done to contain this kind of mole-hill battle" ? Here Westfeldzug was not one battle, but a whole campaign, i.e. something between a simple battle and the whole World War. In the infobox, "result" is supposed to be a shortcut for "result_of_the_campaign". On the contrary, in 2016, "decisive" is not read as "in 1940, Gamelin has taken a gamelle (=a French bowl)", but as "this decided, at least in part, the issue of WWII". For the bulleted list, one can argue that "allowed the Ostfeldzug" was one of the main results of the Westfeldzug. And so on. Since there cannot exist a single word that summarizes the whole situation, the best fix is to remind all the contributors of this simple fact. Thus, "result=German victory" with the footnote: "for more details, read the article" appears to be the best way to avoid a further re-ignition. Solutions are supposed to be preventive, aren't they ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Please close this content-dispute thread. An RfC was started 6 days ago. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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

False accusation of 'death threat' by User:Signedzzz

First of all, please read the discussions of User:Signedzzz and User:RioHondo about the obvious possible WP:CoI and WP:BIAS. Just recently, I have been accused by User:Signedzzz of the so-called 'death threat' on my post on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Need of tags. This kind of behavior is very unconstructive, because I have followed all instructions from him regarding the use of tags. I have also viewed his revisions and how he delete some sourced contributions and replacing it with the negative ones, that may have violated WP:NPOV and WP:COI.

User:Signedzzz: Huh? Excuse me 'po', but I'm only 15 years old, contributing for WP:NPOV maintenance of Wikipedia, and I think you're an adult already, and you're accusing me "death threat". Seriously, are there no any excuses to remove those tags aside from accussing me of 'death threat'. So childish on your part. Nakakabastos. So scary, because my conscience can't endure that. Okay, back to "false accusations" (read first the WP:BULLYING, WP:NPA):

• First time that I have put those tags on Rodrigo Duterte article, because of your discussions with User:RioHondo on several disputes of content, with mentions of WP:CoI.
• Then, you removed it with a summary of "tag specific sections and state what the "systemic bias" issue is on article talk".
• I've added those tags again and left you message in talk page to tag specific sections, but you have removed those tags, with a summary of 'death threat is no explanation', and removed also the talk page 'need of tags' section, with a summary of 'remove death threat'.

"PS: Just remember that all of our actions here in Wiki is recorded in page history and may be seen by anyone, members of the Wiki or not."

— User:PogingJuan, Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Need of tags

So now, guys, is the quote above a "death threat"? No, It's just a friendly reminder. Like User:Hariboneagle927 said, "it is a reminder for users to be accountable for their edits", because we can be blocked by admins if they found out that our contributions have conflict of interest. It is true that all contributions here in Wikipedia may be seen by both Wiki and non-Wiki members as they can also edit or create an article. Also, I based the quote on the following quote by User:RioHondo:

"Your (User:Signedzzz) September 14 mass deletion of sourced contributions and replacement with biased entries, it's all recorded in the page history."

— User:RioHondo, Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Death squads

Wait, for Signedzzz to have interpreted it 'to include Davao Death Squad', which is one of the topics of the discussion, is a foul. I have no any affiliation and will never have on those extrajudicial killers. have now explained my side. Now, this bullying made by User:Signedzzz is truly unjustifiable on the rules of Wikipedia. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user in fact has a problematic behavior and is intent on turning the Rodrigo Duterte article into a WP:COATRACK. He has been engaging in edit wars with anyone who he sees are trying to add or defend "pro-Rodrigo Duterte" edits, in the article on Rodrigo Duterte. It is evident in the tone of several sections, particularly on Crime Rate, Extrajudicial killings, Economic performance, and even the section on his Personal life (really? A viagra comment to introduce his personal life?)

I first called him out after his attempts to delete whole sections of sourced positive content September 14 1,2,3,4. Since then he has been adding his POV sources, most recent of which is his edits on media killings by inserting out-of-nowhere claims saying the country is a dangerous place for journalists where hundreds have been killed since 1970s side-by-side with Duterte comments about media killings as if the media killings of the past are also attributable to him.5.

He also turned our section dispute (of where certain sections must be placed in the article) 9 into an accusation of removing them entirely. 6. In another disruptive edit, he left a note saying "Revert pro-Duterte changes" 7. Really? Anything thats favorable to the person in the BLP is not welcome in his own BLP? But he continues adding his anti-Duterte sources and no one removes them. About his accusation of death threat against the complainant, he was called out in the article's talk page by another user for making that accusation and was told not to delete the post as it was rude, but that ended in another edit war apparently.

The problematic editor is also engaged in the same problematic editing in Philippine Drug War, too many that people, including myself, just got tired of fixing them. And then there's the article on Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016 that he wants deleted, saying it's an advocacy article that is biased for the Philippine President's war on drugs. I know why he is doing all of this. In the article on Leila de Lima who is President Duterte's fiercest political opponent and critic, i reverted his deletion of sourced entries that he said were biased against de Lima, including her involvement in controversies and a scandal. In the article's talk page, he denied he had WP:COI with Leila de Lima but that he works in the same office as her. That to me is a clear conflict of interest and it explains why he has been behaving the way he does on these articles.--RioHondo (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a laugh, albeit unintentionally. I was intending to ignore this, but I would just like to point out that I wrote little or none of the article sections linked above. If some admin could block the OP, or failing that explain to them the basics of when, why and how to tag articles, that would be helpful. Cheers zzz (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Also I am out of reverts so could someone remove the offending talk page section right now please, thank you. zzz (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess no editors have heard of the dog-whistle concept (all the rage now in the Philippines, personified by the subject of the article ...) I was discussing this earlier and I was told "Yes it obviously is, and the fucking [geniuses] at Wikipedia won't be able to understand", so I'm not altogether shocked. It's identical to a death threat, it conveys no (other?) useful or valid information, but "you can't prove it" :( zzz (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Signedzzz, you're really going to have to explain how this was a death threat. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is identical to one, but one cannot prove it is one, as I just stated. I don't have any clue what you want explaining, since you didn't say. I really don't see how it helps to continue discussing it. zzz (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is identical to one? You better either retract the accusation or explain in detail real quick - I'm close to blocking you for being incompetent. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I had a full walk-through all typed up, since I want it removed, and it got lost in an edit conflict with Hijiri's simultaneous detailed explanation. Let me know if you are still having difficulty. zzz (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense now, thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To the OP, please learn how to link to diffs and sections. It's very hard to follow your evidence when you don't know how to do this. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Links were prepared, User:Someguy1221 ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• (Non-administrator comment) The OP is too long, but I did make a sincere attempt to read it anyway. None of it makes much sense, and the English is terrible. I've only once before encountered a user who randomly started writing in another language when their point didn't seem to be coming across in English. I can't see any evidence of a bad-faith death threat accusation (or any death threat accusation for that matter). I "Ctrl+F" the words "death threat" (which the OP placed in quotation marks) on the linked talk page, and they do not appear there now. If they have been removed, then a diff should have been provided. Both PopingJuan and RioHondo may be showing signs of WP:CIR issues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• The death threat accusation is in an edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the words were used in an edit summary. I do think the wording PopingJuan used is problematic, and it is not difficult, in-context, to read it the way Signedzzz did, as clarified in their following edit summary. I think the way we should deal with these kind of "borderline death threats" should be similar to how we deal with borderline legal threats. clear statement by the user who posted the offending material tht they did not mean this as a threat should be issued, and if such a statement is forthcoming neither user should be blocked. Since it does not appear any statement was made before this ANI thread was opened, Signedzzz should not be sanctioned for attempting to remove what they, in good faith, interpreted as a threat, but since the opening of this ANI thread counts as a de facto statement that no threat was intended, Signedzzz should refrain from further mass deletions. The specific text about people off-wiki seeing the material about death squads should be removed, however, as it is very likely to be interpreted as a threat and the de facto retraction took place on ANI rather than immediately below. If any more edit-warring to reinsert the offending material takes place after this is done, those who reinserted the material should be blocked; if Signedzzz again removes text that does not look like a death threat, he should be block (although reverting any further attempt to reinsert the implied threat is acceptable). I would also caution PopingJuan to be very careful about their wording in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The death threat accusation is just the most recent of his WP:BADFAITH behavior. As with most of the user's dealings with other users in the page, it started from an edit war on appropriately tagged concerns. 1,2,3. Apparently, the user does not see any issue with his edits despite the multiple concerns i brought up on the talk page. It's this pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring and treating the articles mentioned as a battleground that indicate the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. One only has to look at their page histories to see his WP:POINTY edits and how he's basically WP:OWNed them. I just stopped editing in those articles to avoid getting into trouble with someone who does not intend to collaborate and who has a declared conflict of interest. And I commented here only because I was tagged in the discussion. Thank you.--RioHondo (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: It's not entirely clear what you mean by "conflict of interest" -- this is commonly used to describe users with a personal connction to the subject, who usually want to add positive and remove negative information, but Signedzzz appears to be doing the opposite. Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte? Because that's not a conflict of interest; it's an opinion. This edit definitely looks like coatracking a bunch of material from sources that don't appear to mention Duterte, but if you want to start an ANI thread about that do so -- don't hijack one that is already a poorly-formatted apology for what looked very much like a threat of off-wiki violence. Claiming that Signedzzz has assumed WP:BADFAITH is disruptive, since plenty of users would assume the same thing on reading the comment in question. It looked very much like a threat. If you have legitimate grievances, please summarize them, with diffs, in a userspace draft and then post it when it is ready. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RioHondo have explained about it on the above,

"The problematic editor is also engaged in the same problematic editing in Philippine Drug War, too many that people, including myself, just got tired of fixing them. And then there's the article on Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016 [originally titled "I am sorry for my country") that he wants deleted, saying it's an advocacy article that is biased for the Philippine President's war on drugs. I know why he is doing all of this. In the article on Leila de Lima who is President Duterte's fiercest political opponent and critic, i reverted his deletion of sourced entries that he said were biased against de Lima, including her involvement in controversies and a scandal. In the article's talk page, he denied he had WP:COI with Leila de Lima but that he works in the same office as her. That to me is a clear conflict of interest and it explains why he has been behaving the way he does on these articles."

— User:RioHondo, this very noticeboard section

~Manila's PogingJuan 11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For more information on the subjects tagged, Senator Leila de Lima is the staunchest critic of President Rodrigo Duterte and his administration, especially the declared 'war on drugs'.. 1 2

User:Hijiri88: I've removed Tagalog words and eng translations of it (originally italicized) are the replacements. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@PopingJuan: Yes, I read those already. Posting them again does not answer my question about COI, nor does it explain what that has to do with the death threat issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 Hijack the thread? Where did that come from? I'm pretty sure my comments were directed at the WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:BIAS issues that were brought up by the complainant above against the user. And because i was tagged in this discussion, i just had to explain that. As i said, the user admitted his connection to Leila de Lima, an anti-Duterte politician which explains his anti-Duterte edits and hostile behavior in all the articles i mentioned above. It's this pattern of behavior (edit warring, reverting "pro-Duterte edits", malicious accusation) that has lead to this conflict as far as those articles are concerned. The fact that he continued with this problematic editing for a month in those articles with little resistance means every ounce of WP:AGF was extended to him. But AGF can only go so far. That is why i am not surprised with this death threat accusation coming from the user. And again, I am only explaining the dispute with regards to those WP policies that were brought up. I am not "hijacking" this discussion or whatever you'd like to think.--RioHondo (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The actual subject of this thread is the borderline death threat on the talk page. It's clear-cut and already resolved. If you want to accuse Signedzzz of tendentious editing, you should start your own thread. No one is still reading at this point, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:WIKILAWYERING. Only you and your friend see it as a 'death threat'. Everyone else sees it as a pattern of bad behavior from someone who does not want his edits to be questioned or challenged, despite the obvious violations of WP policies. And edit warring to achieve this end.--RioHondo (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Signedzzz and I are not friends. We have interacted once before, and while we were kinda-sorta technically on the same side in that dispute, the same was true of virtually everyone involved. Also, please read my comments more carefully. I never said I thought it was a death threat. While acknowledging PopingJuan's statement that it was not meant as a death threat, I said I thought it looked like a death threat. You and PopingJuan, both of whom appear to be non-native speakers, seem to be the only ones who don't think it looked like a death threat. The portion of text that looked like a threat has been removed -- why are we still here? Seriously, if you have evidence of tendentious editing on the part of Signedzzz, I would be happy to look through it, but so far you have given me nothing (the diff of him coatracking the article was something I had to go and dig up myself); and even if you present evidence in this thread at this point, chances are I will be the only one to read it, and I'm not an admin. You should draft your evidence off-wiki or in your user space, and open a new ANI thread when it is ready. This thread has already gone way past WP:TLDR with bullshit about whether PopingJuan meant his comment as a death threat or it merely looked like one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88 A classic example of WP:POV RAILROAD. If the user really saw it as a serious death threat, he would have been first to report it here or to emergency@wikipedia.org per WP:CIVILITY and WP:BULLY. But the user made the accusation in the middle of an edit war with the OP and only thru an edit summary, nothing more. If you think only the OP and I think it is not a death threat, check the Talk page history.--RioHondo (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You should check the page history yourself. User:Hariboneagle927 basically agreed[5] with me about the sentence at the end about people off-wiki seeing the commentary being open to interpretation. The only difference is the degree to which we thought it inappropriate -- Hariboneagle interpreted it as PopingJuan apparently intended, while I interpreted it the same way as Signedzzz. Signedzzz's removing the whole thing again[6] was, in my opinion, inappropriate, but he has already essentially agreed to refrain from doing so again (I think he thanked me for one of my posts where I said he should), and I have said that he should be blocked if he does so. PopingJuan's jumping in and reverting Hariboneagle[7] without any explanation was definitely out of line, and his lack of contriteness here indicates to me that he is likely to do it again. Your own choosing to read so much (Signedzzz being insincere) into Signedzzz's not going to the trouble to research normal practice with regard to perceived threats is ... actually pretty disgusting. You should drop that train of thought immediately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

However you try to justify the user's behavior, it was still done in the middle of an edit war and using that same talk page accusation just to revert the OP's edits--"death threat is no explanation"01 02 03. That accusation itself falls under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars, especially when the user is trying to misrepresent actual edits just to discredit the other editor. He's done that in the past as I have explained in my initial comment.--RioHondo (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, an edit war took place. Yes, accusations were made. Yes, both sides made those accusations. The most recent inappropriate revert was by PogingJuan. Signedzzz has said he will stop reverting. PogingJuan has not, and neither have you. You are now the one trying to claim that Signedzzz was in breach of this or that policy or guideline, and therefore you and PogingJuan must be in the right. It is perfectly obvious that Signedzzz was acting in good faith when he read PogingJuan's edit as a threat. You can say what you want about how he should have emailed emergency services rather than removing the offending text, but that's beside the point. I should clarify that I have not read your initial comment: it was 442 words long and I could tell from the first few words that it had nothing to do with whether or not there was a death threat issued. If you want to sum up your problems with Signedzzz, I suggest you be more concise next time. ANI, like almost everything on Wikipedia, is voluntary: if you are too verbose, no one will read what you write. I went out of my way to read the mess PogingJuan posted at the top of this thread so I could respond, and I didn't feel like expending more effort on the unrelated mess you posted.

And there is also the problem of what on earth you are trying to accomplish here. Do you want an admin to block Signedzzz but not PogingJuan or Hariboneagle for the already-concluded edit war? Blocks are preventative -- if two parties in a three-way edit war (Hariboneagle and Signedzzz) have already agreed to a compromise, then the only preventative block would be one of the third party (PogingJuan). Blocking Signedzzz because you think he was wrong to make the initial revert is not preventative, because he has already agreed that this was wrong and only removing the text that looked like a threat was the way to go.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I am questioning the user's intentions given this string of disruptive and tendentious edits and this pattern of repeated ill behavior which i laid down here with diffs. It has been going on for a while (all these false accusations to discredit editors and to keep them from challenging his POV edits) so I thank the OP for bringing this up here. It has to stop and the article on Rodrigo Duterte must be reviewed by disinterested editors to address the BLP violations (COATRACK, UNDUE, NPOV, COI) entered by the problematic user.--RioHondo (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"the article must be reviewed to address BLP violations" is not an issue for ANI. I have posted on BLPN for. You don't need to thank me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to at least say Arrigato. :) But WP:AAEW and WP:NOTHERE, particularly disruptive behavior pattern and battleground, still fall under this ANI thread I think.--RioHondo (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said on BLPN, no one is reading this, but you're welcome. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: First, the one who accused me of 'death threat' is Signedzzz. He removed the section I've placed and wrote on the summary as 'remove death threat'. You may want to visit this one. By the way, I saw your contributions on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte, also stating of the summary that "removed pointless borderline death threat threats". I'm not going to revert it back as I'm tired. I've explained on the OP that this one is not a death threat, and just a friendly reminder that we may be blocked by admins if they found out that our contribs has a conflict of interest or it's written in a non-neutral PoV. Now, about CoI. You said in a question, "Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte?" He doesn't like Duterte and like the critic De Lima? Well, I don't care, it's his/her business. But if it's affecting on how he write articles about the said subjects, and when he starts writing within a PoV, deleting other sourced contributions and replacing it with anti-Duterte contribution that's pretty much wrong as it is violating rules. And he has been deleting the tag of Template:POV, asking me what's the basis, and now I've answered and I just reminded, then now I am being accused of 'death threat'ing a Wikipedian. That's it after all. I hope you understand my sentiments of writing with neutral point of view, with User:RioHondo. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You did post a death threat on the talk page. Whether you meant it as a death threat is irrelevant, because that is how it was interpreted, and this interpretation had merit. The portion of your comment that constituted the threat has been removed now. You should be more careful going forward. Can we close this thread now? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close PopingJuan posted what looked like a death threat, and Signedzzz attempted to remove it several times. PopingJuan has clarified that they did not mean it as a threat. The offending text has been removed. There seems to be an ongoing (good-faith) content dispute, but that is not something ANI can or should resolve, at least until evidence is provided that it is anything more than a content dispute. Both RioHondo and PopingJuan have insisted that this is more than a content dispute, but have not provided any evidence. They have been advised to regroup, organize what evidence they have, and open a new thread later, if they so choose. The "death threat" issue discussed at length in the top half of this thread has been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I and Riohondo have given you links on Signedzzz's edit, showing the most possible non-neutral POV. why should we close this ANI, if there were issues like the most possible POV-edits of Signedzzz? Do you really think, it's only the WP:BULLYING that I am continuing this fight for, despite of busy schedules outside Wiki? No, this started once and for all, because of POV edits of Signedzzz, proved by me and RioHondo using links we have posted on ANI. I think we need other contributors' opinion regarding the issue. ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:: Another thing, if that the alleged 'death threat' was his problem, Signedzzz should have rather deleted it than deleting the whole section, including on why the article should be tagged, especially of POV tags. This time, you really have to answer this, @Signedzzz:. ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Or else, I have to tag Signedzzz as incompetent as since the time this ANI has started, I haven't see any explanations of Signedzzz about his non-NPOV edits on Duterte and related topics. And wait, what is his rationale on, my humble opinion, this non-sense reply of him: "If some admin could block the OP,"? ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Give it a fucking break already. Signedzzz was wrong to remove your whole post rather than just the bit that looked like a threat. You were wrong to reinsert the bit that looked like a threat. Signedzzz has said he will no longer attempt to remove your whole post now that the bit that looked like a threat is gone. Why the hell are we still here, apart from your stubbornly wanting to continue discussing a content dispute on ANI? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

While I understand the frustration of being accused of making a death threat, (it is the lowest form of 'argument' in an edit war that borders on harassment if you ask me), we can still discuss these issues in a civil and polite way and not have to resort to shouting (bold letters) or saying the f word as User:Signedzzz did above. Having said that, is this 'death threat accusation' really just an isolated incident that stemmed from misunderstanding? Or is it part of a growing pattern of abusive or hostile behavior on the part of the accuser? I have laid down my own observation of the user and i say here: i saw it coming. Remember this started with a simple POV tag to the article. It wasn't like deleting any of the user's numerous questionable contributions to the article.01. The user reverted the OP saying it was unexplained 02. As the user continued editing the article, the OP then restored the tags saying discussions on talk page enough for declaring the article with 'NON-NPOV' and has a 'systematic bias03. Again, none of his edits were being reverted but just the tags which IMO, are reasonable given our disputes in the talk page. The user again rejected it and asked the OP to tag specific sections and state what the "systemic bias" issue is on article talk04 When the OP did and provided a link to the talk page discussion as requested by the user05, the user then out of nowhere accused the OP and reverted him with a casual note: death threat is no explanation06. Was the accusation then a legitimate grievance? or an argument in an edit war meant meant to silence the OP? Even without context, the accusation was still made in the midst of an edit war which puts the accusation in question. And then when you consider the history of the user's behavior in the article, this pattern of disruptive behavior, it tells us it is false and a harassment against the newbie OP, as I myself have experienced with the user.--RioHondo (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Rodrigo Duterte is a seriously badly written tabloid-like (over written trivia, under written hard content) article on a vile individual, a true monster. I can imagine that in that environment/on that topic the merest implied hint of a death threat could have serious inplications, and even something unimplied can be easily misinterpreted as being one. And people actually worry about a few offhand words said by Donald Trump! Compared to Duterte, he is a saint. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your observation. User:Hijiri88 already posted those article concerns on WP:BLPN which I hope will really clean up or straighten out those neutrality and coatracking issues raised. The anti-Duterte user has been editing that article more than any of us here so he knows what he was doing and what he was getting himself into. Despite the controversial nature of the person in the BLP, it hadn't been this hostile an environment and in fact people have been editing the article freely with both pros and cons being accepted in good faith. It all changed when those mass deletions of pro content and replacement with all negative trivia took place. Since then, edit wars became frequent with the user now questioning every pro edit. He continued editing at his will though. Neither the OP nor I deleted any of his edits except the time i reverted his deletions. The article talk page is proof of this long standing neutrality dispute so the user has no reason to edit war on simple tags. Or cry foul and make baseless accusations in doing so. I hope your article on Donald Trump is not as hostile though :).--RioHondo (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Edit warring anew Ok. This is too much. User:Signedzzz has been engaging in edit war again today, after deleting a sourced content calling it WP:SYNTH or WP:OR when that text has been there long and is clearly supported by ref. He has taken ownership of the article, wouldn't even reply to my msg in his talk to explain his Synth and OR claims. 123. I dont care if he hates Rodrigo Duterte, but this hostility towards users trying to put balance and objectivity to the article has got to stop.--RioHondo (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: (1) Your pun on WP:ANEW was delightful, and gave me a good chuckle. Thank you. (2) Your wording is clearly not supported by the source. The Ombudsman's office said they had not been gathering evidencd against Duterte, not that no such evidence existed. The quotation about Not finding evidence (presumably having searched) comes from the Senate justice committee, which is clearly not the same as the Office of the Ombudsman. (3) You say he "wouldn't even reply to [you on] his talk", but his last edit was eight minutes before you posted on his talk page. (4) I highly doubt anyone other than me is reading your continued commentary in this thread. (5) Your behaviour here is bordering on WP:HARASSMENT. You have a content dispute wih Signedzzz, and virtually every thirs pary so far has taken his side in this dispute because he seems to have the better position. You have been tying to get around the proper dispute resolution avenues by painting this as a one-sided user conduct issue and wikilawyer your way into getting some kind of undefined sanction against Sinedzzz. You clearly do not have a leg to stand on. If you continue in this behaviour rather than opening an RFC or DRN discussion on your content dispute, I will request that you be blocked or TBANned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why the above user keep speaking on behalf of Signedzzz, and "interpreting" the user's actions and intentions as if he was his designated spokesperson, but where is the Senate committee on justice in this Rappler source cited? This was a January 2016 Ombudsman decision when Duterte was not yet president. The senate justice committee is an entirely different matter and came much later when he was already president. Btw, can the above user get his friend to do the explaining here instead of providing his alibi all the time? And why is he even more angry than the accused? He claims to have only interacted with the user on one occasion, but he talks like he knows all the issues of the user and even the article where he is not even an active contributor.--RioHondo (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? Ban proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am really calling the administrators to put sanctions and block on:

• User:Signedzzz for disruptive behavior and POV in editing Duterte article (with evidences provided by me and RioHondo above), accusing me of death threat as part of his disruptive behavior, removing POV tags even with rationale that there is a discussion on talk page about POV editing of Signedzzz, proposing to block me without even rationale, not almost present in the discussion to discuss his side with even saying that he even intends to join this discussion where he is involved.
• User:Hijiri88 for speaking in behalf of Signedzzz (WP:LAWYERING). He even say that Signedzzz will stop on his disruptive behavior and the removal of POV tags was wrong, without really coming from Signedzzz. He even wants this discussion to be concluded, but sorry, it's not enough. Also, he is altering the discussion. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: PBAN User:RioHondo from the Duterte article and its talk page

I don't know if some of Signedzzz's oher edits have been disruptive, but clearly the basis of this thread is flawed (the death threat accusation was not in bad faith -- it really looked like one) and in the recent "edit-warring" he was trying to keep unsourced material out of the article that RioHondo was insisting on including. RioHondo's above refusal to drop he WP:STICK indicates that he isn't interested in civil discussion of their content dispute, and is engaged in harassment of Signedzzz. Therefore, I think banning RioHondo from the page would be a reasonable solution to the current disruption.

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Do not alter the discussion. It's Signedzzz and you that should be banned and blocked. You said Signedzzz would not be disruptive again. One more thing, speaking for another user is not right, even without presenting evidences that he really said that. Let Signedzzz explain in this ANI. And why I have raised this ANI? It's because I believe that it is a part of his strategies so I would stop tagging the POV tags on Duterte article. And he was in so-called good faith in removing the whole need of tags section because of only one sentence reminder that he said is a death threat? He could remove that sentence only, but he instead removed all, even the POV tags on Duterte article that is needed due to discussions in the talk page. Well, I did raise this ANI in good faith. RioHondo and I have presented evidences of disruptive behavior and POV edits of Signedzzz above with good faith and with accordance of Wikipedia policy. While you have been lawyering Signedzzz and Signedzzz have not presented his rationale on why he should be absolved. We are not even in a judicial court for a need of lawyering. Also, Signedzzz proposing that admins should block me without rationale and I should be taught on how to tag, while I have tagged it correctly. It's not even right. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Why did you even want to ban RioHondo in Duterte article and talk? Ah I know why, you've been lawyering Signedzzz since discussion was opened. Therefore, so no one can stop Signedzzz on his, sorry for the word, shit POV editing of the article. But I'm sorry, I'm back on the track. I'll still fight for neutral point of view editing and still looking for admin's sanctions on Signedzzz for his accusation of so-called 'death threat' that he said I have placed, just to stop me on putting NPOV tags. I'm still for the improvement of Rodrigo Duterte article and I'm ready to put sourced contribution, even it is a positive or negative one. Stop biased editing here. I really don't care if you like or hate Rodrigo Duterte. On Wikipedia, we must be neutral. And to Hijiri88, stop lawyering Signedzzz like we are in a judicial court. Let him explain. Do not be his same user. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am really calling the administrators to put sanctions and block on:

• User:Signedzzz for disruptive behavior and POV in editing Duterte article (with evidences provided by me and RioHondo above), accusing me of death threat as part of his disruptive behavior, removing POV tags even with rationale that there is a discussion on talk page about POV editing of Signedzzz, proposing to block me without even rationale, not almost present in the discussion to discuss his side with even saying that he even intends to join this discussion where he is involved.
• User:Hijiri88 for speaking in behalf of Signedzzz (WP:LAWYERING). He even say that Signedzzz will stop on his disruptive behavior and the removal of POV tags was wrong, without really coming from Signedzzz. He even wants this discussion to be concluded, but sorry, it's not enough.~Manila's PogingJuan 11:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@PogingJuan: "It's ... you that should be banned and blocked" That's pretty ridiculous. What would blocking me do? Or banning me? What kind of ban? A page ban? I've only edited the page once, an innocuous edit several weeks ago. And what did I do either here or on BLPN that would merit a block? I have been consistently trying to calm the situation and get the three of you to discuss your content dispute in a civil manner. I proposed a reasonable solution to the perceived death threat and edit-warring that Signedzzz accepted and you appear to have tacitly accepted, but you have continued arguing that something should be done to "punish" Signedzzz for having edit-warred and overreacted to your comment even though the problem abated. Signedzzz has indicated he is amenable to dispute resolution, whereas the two of you have just continued making outlandish claims and insisting that the admins indefinitely block Signedzzz (I think?) without any evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: What reasonable solution? The deletion of that sentence reminder? Not bringing it back does not mean I did agree. Do you think it's not hard to be accused of something you didn't really do, while you only did something in good faith and without malice? To remind you, the discussion is not only opened because of the accusation of death threat, but also because of its roots, like POV editing of Signedzzz and his continuous removal of POV. It's a chain reaction, bro! The fact that this discussion is not yet closed, Signedzzz is still continuously being engaged in edit wars and still with Duterte article, as RioHondo have explained with evidences. Isn't it enough for Signedzzz to be blocked indefinitely? He will not stop unless he'll be blocked. And the fact you have been lawyering Signedzzz since discussion opened with Signedzzz himself do not present rationale, instead, say that I must be blocked because of no reason and say I must be taught by admins when to put tags, while I have put it properly and rationally. Let him explain in this ANI. One more thing, why proposing ban to RioHondo, while he have acted properly? He did contribute to the article and Signedzzz is keeping on removing it while the contribution was sourced. On the logic, why proposing ban to RioHondo, while both of them, RioHondo and Signedzzz, are involved? It will be biased if you only want RioHondo be blocked, while Signedzzz you don't want, just for the dispute be stopped, and Signedzzz will continue his disruptive behavior because no one will oppose him even his activities are against Wikipedia policies. ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The reasonable solution was that (1) the portion of your post that resembled a death threat be removed (a concession on your part), (2) Signedzzz stops trying to remove the rest of your post (a concession of Signedzzz's part), and (3) both of you stop edit-warring over the post (a mutual concession). It is obvious that the edit-warring on the article has continued, but it takes two to edit-war and (in the most recent instance regarding what the Ombudsman has said) Signedzzz appears to be right with regard the substance and Signedzzz has not tried to wikilawyer his way to a "victory". "because of no reason" is incorrect -- anyone who examines any of your posts in this thread, or on the talk page, can see how the project may be better off without you. I say "may" because I myself think that you are acting in good faith and, if your dispute with Signedzzz were properly mediated, there would be no problem, and this is why I have not proposed that you be blocked. If you continue to make accusations about how I am acting as a "lawyer" for Signedzzz I will reconsider this opinion. I have not been paid, nor have Signedzzz and I entered into any kind of agreement, and I have actually been rather critical of him if you go through everything I have posted in this thread. The only reason it seems like I am taking sides is because, by and large, Signedzzz has politely accepted my criticism and acted in accordance with my advice, while you and RioHondo have been refusing any form of compromise and aggressively attacking me as being in some way partisan. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• How about if all of you end this idiocy and go back to editing articles? EEng 16:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree completely. I really wish we could. But somehow I keep getting pinged and prodded because these people just can't seem to drop the stick. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

On blocking User:Muhd FUad and his other accounts

• Muhd FUad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhd FUad/Archive

I am not sure this is the right place to report but it seems to me that the blocking of User:Muhd FUad and his other accounts was not duly justified as the only reason was using several accounts but there is no evidence of abusing or illegitimate behavior. Andres (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• User creates multiple poorly-sourced (or unsourced) stubs - and sometimes articles with no information at all apart from an infobox! - on various sportspeople of dubious notability. They are asked to stop (or improve the articles to show notability). They completely ignore this and carry on. Eventually, they are blocked. They then use sockpuppets not only to continue their disruption but also, in many cases, to re-create articles that had been deleted. If that's not an issue, I'm not sure what is. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia wants to have all articles sourced from the beginning. But for a newcomer (whose first language probably isn't English) it is difficult to realize at once what is expected from him. As far as I can see no personal message was sent to him, only unpersonal universal messages he needn't understand. And commonsensically it is difficult to understand why using several accounts is bad behaviour.

Wikipedia has a regular deletion procedure for cases of dubious notability. All articles that were noted on User talk:Muhd FUad are still there, they have been turned out to be notable and other uses have edited them.

I came across this via the article Getter Saar. Look at [8]. Yes, it is poorly written and contains unimportant information but it is sourced (though not referenced according to the rules) and it is not obvious it should be deleted. The only reason why it was deleted (even after substantial revisions by other wikipedists) is that the author has (or is thought to have) several accounts. And the only ever reproach (as far as I know) was that notability had not been established by the original author, not even bad writing.

I think we should try to contact newcomers personally and explain them how to improve their contributions. I think blocking and massive deletion is counterproductive in cases like this. Andres (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is very probable that the author didn't understand the messages (maybe even that he had been blocked and his articles had been deleted) and just kept trying again. I am not sure his behaviour wasn't bona fide. But the main thing is that he hasn't done so much harm as it has been done by deleting his articles and blocking him. Sorry if I am wrong. For me these procedures were surprising. If the others think it's normal then let it be. Andres (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand Andres' concerns and I sympathize. However, if an editor does not understand messages posted to his talkpage at all then unfortunately he is unlikely to be able to contribute constructively to the English Wikipedia. It may still be that his contributions were made with good intentions. But, long term, his continuing to edit here would likely be disruptive if he cannot understand messages from other editors. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that I applaud Andres raising this here, because it is only through such requests for review that we can understand when the English language Wikipedia might not be handling such matters as well as it should. The English language Wikipedia needs as many editors as it can get, so if there are problems with how new or problematic editors are handled, then all information and viewpoints are valuable and well worth reading. MPS1992 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• endorse block - what I am seeing is an editor who made around 2000 edits and used a talk page ... 5 times - see edit count. 4 of those talk edits were to their own talk page, blanking things (see history search); the other edit was blanking another editor's talk page. plenty of people who speak little english are ready to ~try~ to communicate. Muhd FUad is anti-communicative; ignoring and even blanking efforts to communicate, creating socks, and blanking SPIs (diff and diff through one of their socks) which are all signs of someone who doesn't want to be responsive to the editing community, and that is a requirement, not an option, of retaining one's editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I see, it's really hard to defend or justify his behavior.

The reasons cited for blocking didn't specify this. Andres (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia wants get rid of deceptive or otherwise malicious users. (Though it's probable that unfriendly and unpersonal treatment provokes them to exhibit their worst character traits.) But I see no point in mass deletion of articles. I think dubious notability, poor writing or imperfect referencing cannot justify this. If we delete the articles then the appearance of the topics will be delayed indefinitely and we don't use the contribution of a (though deceptive) user. Andres (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• My question is where all the things started. All the above mentioned things are follow ups to one (right or wrong) starting point. And I cannot find the point, where the blocking penalty started and if it was the right measure - especially because due to this were already deleted around 50 (correct) articles, into which also other authors invested a lot of time. And by the way: I also want to keep my discussion percentage close to zero - this here is a very seldom case where I feel it is necessary to communicate. Florentyna (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

people create articles, other people delete them. happens all the time here. there are ways to respond if you object. but you have to engage with other users. you have to talk. this is not social media, but it is a working community and people have to talk each other; that is the foundation of this whole project. not liking deletions so repeatedly recreating them is not an option; recreating them through socks is even less of an option. The only person to blame for Muad's being blocked, is Muad. It is clear as day in what Muad chose to do (and not do) here. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue is mass deletion solely because of authorship. The articles themselves don't deserve mass deletion. Andres (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Andres:; we should block the user for his truculent/lazy editing practices look at the articles on a case by case basis before a mass deletion. If they meet the standard for inclusion except for the fact that they were posted by an inept user then I'm not sure if it makes sense to delete them. if it turns out that all or most of them are spam then that's different. I'll volunteer to take a look at some today just to get the ball rolling just to at least determine if they all have enough sources to make them worthwhile to salvage. Alicb (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Dispute about page Expulsion of Cham Albanians

• @SilentResident: I volunteered to mediate in a dispute that arose about points in the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians (if it is read right through) for the result and the details of the dispute. User:SilentResident agrees with me that a block or other serious sanction is needed against User:DevilWearsBrioni. User:DevilWearsBrioni has ignored two ARBMAC warnings already on the matter and likely would ignore a third. Before resorting to the extreme of blocking DevilWearsBrioni, I prefer to see what consensus there is on the matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: In addition to me and Mediator Anthony Appleyard, also Mediator User:Iazyges agrees with us on a block: [9] -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Officially endorsing topic ban As per my statement linked above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This issue won't go away. This issue, with User:DevilWearsBrioni constantly arguing that any post that he doesn't agree with is original research, seemed to be one that needed to go to formal mediation. If they continue to filibuster after the mediator has reminded them to stay on the subject, it is time for sanctions. A topic-ban from Expulsion of Cham Albanians and any related topics as a arbitration enforcement sanction may be preferable to a block, since one simply sits out a block and comes back. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: I shall clarify that when I said "block" (above in my previous comment), I meant "ban" and not account block or whatever. Robert McClenon was very kind to explain the difference between bans and blocks on my Talk page [10]. My apologies for the initial confusion of terms ban/block.

And like how Robert said, we have a case of disruption on ARBMAC-protected articles, where any text they do not agree with, the editor falsely perceived/claimed it as being OR. Their unfounded and false WP:OR and WP:SYNTH accusations, combined with their 3RR breaches and ARBMAC violations, NPOV violations, acting against consensus, refusal to abide by the DRN's resolutions, and failure to be reasoned with in the RfM, leaves us no other options. A permanent topic ban is necessary. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have requested Arbitration Enforcement against DWB here [11]. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Wwikix and categories

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

---

The user User:Wwikix has basically re-arranged the whole of wikipedia category structure and processes without consultation or any form of sign of checking against standard established procedures of reaching consensus in project or talk space.

When challenged the general responses have never referred to general policy or established procedures, simply referring to common sense, I think and similar phrases.

I believe a reasonable level of WP:AGF here on english wikipedia, has allowed this user to exploit the general disinterest in large scale re-arrangement of category structure and unfortunately a number of editors who have worked in the area are not currently active or editing.

My concern is that the discussions at project Category, the users talk page, and the general responses require a closer look, as the editors who have challenged the changes, are responded to in a way that I believe requires a more critical look at what exactly is going on. JarrahTree 14:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, very exaggerated. Wwikix (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Show me where you consulted first before changing category strucuture on english wikipedia, and could you be kind enough to explain to english speakers what [[12] means, and what was all that about? JarrahTree 14:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that needs much translating, actually! -although what the actual offences were might be relevant. Think I saw Drmies around recently...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't speak Dutch, but a Google Translate of [13] shows a very similar pattern to what we see at User talk: Wwikix. Evidence of a great number of changes not based on policy but based solely on the user's view of what is good and what isn't. agtx 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that, to be fair to Wwikix, this is very different to the one at nl~wp and is, on consideration, the one we should probably be concerned with. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a fairly spot-on explanation of your activities and your responses when questioned. And I was also, earlier today, considering registering my concerns here. Largoplazo (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: to whom are you replying? _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to be as WP:AGF as possible (was wp en meant to be a fresh start? or a continuation of the same on nl?), but the responses from the editor to date, as to why and how he is implementing changes to categories and category structure, and the explanations at his talk and the category project talk, suggest that regardless of the context of the blocks there at NL, the problem here, is something that needs to be considered carefully, and not dismissed without careful examination of what exactly is going on.

To Wwikix, where he states that JarrahTree's complaint is an exaggeration, but the outdent is obscuring the hierarchy of responses.

Something is weird an edit has removedJarrahTree 15:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A claim was made that Wwikix is changing "the whole of category structure on Wikipedia". That indeeds sounds like an exxageration. I have quite a few categories and Cfd-related pages on my watchlist, but haven't noticed his activities yet. @JarrahTree, what are you referring to? Debresser (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it is an exageration - by creep through the whole range of edits - by implication and possible precedence - have a look at his edit history, you will see... the having parent and child cats on the same cat has created a fundamental change to structure and specific conventions by editing, and only responding after being discovered on smaller items - no attempt to consult or check before it was all happening - the admins who have visited have been either argued with, or ignored, or simply deflected by claiming that it is something he likes to do rather than indicating a policy or procedure we have here on wp en JarrahTree 15:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I do speak Dutch. The Dutch ArbCom noticed that Wwikix often edits against broad consensus, and decided that whenever an objection was raised against an edit of his, he would have to establish consensus first, and can not further edit that article till he does so. For the course of one year. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation JarrahTree 15:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Seconded, thanks for the gloss. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Debresser, I just spent ten minutes looking for the 2010 Dutch ArbCom case, which I (finally!) was hoping to find here--but to no avail. Do you know where it is? Drmies (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Isn't that Agtx's link? Or maybe that one links to it ... Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes--thanks. There was a name change, I suppose.

OK--the ArbCom case said nothing about categories, as I thought it might from the enormous amount of category-related complaints on their Dutch talk page; it's rather a more general case, where it was decided that the editor did not handle criticism well and regularly edits against consensus. That case is not of much help in this particular thread. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it this one? Note that on his Dutch block page, he has been barred since June as per this reason. Case of WP:NOTHERE? Notified the Dutch admin that the case is being discussed here as a courtesy. Karst (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ha, I was about to look into this matter--the conversations on the editor's talk page concern me. (And now, Debresser, I see where your comment came from.) "The whole of the category structure", that's hard to do by oneself; I would like to see a more detailed charge. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The NL sys-op commented here in English. Karst (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• He is here at last - you are most welcome sir - but I have to return in about 7+ hours, who know what might happen here in that time - fundamentally the cat editing is massive and there may well be massive ok edits in the 40k + , the assumptions of explaining after changing a slather which might not 'fit' into general practice - it was a good idea at the time responses - seem to never actually refer to any conventions we have here on wp en - having the parent and child cat on the same page was of concern - (and it has an echo of another editor who was challenged some months ago about gross category overlap - nothing happened and it still continues) - not a very coherent explanation, but about to sign off for the night, hope there is something to get a hint from JarrahTree 16:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about or what you are asking us (admins) to do. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Wwikix, you are making huge amounts of unexplained edits which we should be discussing here. That the plaintiff made a lousy case doesn't mean there is no case--please stop making those category edits right now so we can figure this out. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• The issues with this user on the NLWiki were mostly with not following nl:WP:BTNI. I don't know if there is a local policy like it, but in general it says, "don't change things that are not wrong". For example changing the spelling from Dutch to Flemish, changing titles if they're not wrong, reordering a list on a page or things like that. Other issues were over categorising. It looks like the user has an own view of the way the encyclopedia should be ordered, and doesn't want to accept anything that's not according to that view. The arbcom case on the NLWiki has the following rules in play for Wwikix: When an objection is lodged about an edit on a page, it's not allowed to edit that page, until the issue is resolved with the user that lodged the objection. When an objection is lodged about a certain type of action, it's not allowed to do such an edit until the issue is resolved with the user that lodged the objection. Wwikix can ask an moderator of his choice to lift the objection and edit restriction when he feels the objection is invalid. A year after the objection, the restriction is lifted as well. There have been over 20 cases involving Wwikix for the NLwiki arbcom, but these restrictions have been in place since 2010. Unfortunately, Wwikix does not show any progress in following the community guidelines it seems. Iooryz (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC) I've lodged various complains about the edits of Wwikix on the dutch talkpage, so the explanation above might have been coloured by it

Due to RW issues I will not be back on to explain and clarify the reason for the complaint for some hours. JarrahTree 23:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not enough context provided in this or any related discussion for me to figure out or judge anything. However, what distinguishes this from Hmains making a huge number of category-related edits and offering only "refine category structure" in the edit summary, but when you actually look at those edits, you see that Hmains is massively reverting the good-faith efforts of other editors who themselves are trying to refine the category structure? I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who has pointed this out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iooryz It is called WP:AINT here. RW = real world (let's not use jargon too much here, shall we). Debresser (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

response to various editors above. If I have misread any editors intentions or general mission, or the differences, my apologies, I would rather editors made any judgement other than myself. As an observor of the editors activity for some time, and the responses to queries on the talk page, I had come to the belief that editors who deal with massive category shifts need to be accountable, and need to be able to explain against general policy/rule conditions. I repeatedly asked on the talk page - where's the policy that allows you to do so and so - and always got a response that suggests no knowledge whatsoever of generally accepted practices. So what does one do, walk away from such activity and responses ? I noted that other eds has concerns as well.

The claim that I have exaggerated the claim that a large number of categories have been re-configured, or the problem that not enough context is given, I have not seen where the multiple or parallel category system that has been initiated by the editor has been discussed before the changes.

In WP:AGF I had not wanted to include links the activity on other wikis, but it is possible that the issues there might have shed some light on activity here, however the similarity of complaints might be considered by others I have no idea.

The one diff that I offer up to illustrate my concerns, and which might shed light on the larger pattern is: [14] I take responsibility for a poor edit summary, but I would like to offer this, as my area of editing is in relation to Indonesia at times:

• Category:Indonesia
• Category:Indonesia - Geography
• Category:Geography by country -Indonesia
• Category:Geography by country
• Category:Geography of Southeast Asia - Indonesia
• Category:Geography of Asia by country
• Category:Geography of Oceania by country
• Category:Geography of Melanesia by country
• Category:Geography of Southeast Asia by country

I offer to anyone who has worked with categories and the issues that arise from the mix/overlap/cat-subcat events that have occurred on wp en over the years, as to whether this mix is acceptable and exists within the current written policies and generally accepted wikipedia community standards. I have chosen one example, and I believe that such edits are widespread within the users edit history. My query to admins/watchers/commentators - is it acceptable editing ? If so could we have somewhere guidelines/policies where the reasons are given, as just getting I like it responses from the editor in my mind is not what I thought wikipedia community consensus grew from.

I have very serious doubts as to whether the structures created by the editor are viable, however there is a stray comment at the category project page that is coherent as to what the editor might be up to [15] and also the editor has suggested category surfing and visibility are of importance. I would appreciate others comments on this as I have no idea where the visibility of category contents are anything to do with their construction.

Once again, if I have misunderstood the editors intentions, my apologies, or confused readers here, my apologies again, I do hope this explanation goes somewhere to clarify things. If it hasnt please let me know as I would rather hope this particular item is cleared up and not prolonged. JarrahTree 03:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal. Despite a lull in activity after this item was filed, Wwikix has resumed his large-scale re-categorizations, doing them now at a pace of better than one per minute, as shown here. And this is being done despite the fact that extended discussions about his activity have taken place on both his talk page and a WikiProject talk page. And also despite the fact that adminstrator Drmies asked him here to stop doing it until the matter was resolved. I therefore propose that Wwikix be blocked banned, for two months, from making any edits to the categorizations of articles or categories. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (nitpick) I suspect you mean ban instead of block. Kleuske (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for Wwikix, two three months, from any edits to any categories or to any article's categories, as widely construed as necessary. Actually, I think the fact that they have recomenced the same behaviour that brought them here in the first place indicates a degree of WP:IDHT that necessitates a longer absence from that area of the project. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - having brought the issue here, I leave it to admins and others to pass judgement, what concerns me is who where and how the creations of the editor are adequately reviewed - and how and when a system can be created to ascertain valid edits against those deemed unsuitable. There are the ones like the one above that I used as an example of multiple child/parent combinations in the one setting. It would be very good for anyone who has a good handle on the resolution of problems created - rather than just reverting edits - but reviewing where the editing is ok, and identifying the problematic settings somewhere. I believe if done properly, it could be a good lesson for all, to see where the 'hitches' are. JarrahTree 14:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oh dear. I have blocked, and will leave a note there before I come back here. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• OK, this was ridiculous. Wwikix finds the time to make hundreds more unexplained edits (against consensus, if I read the porject page for categories correctly), but can't be bothered to say anything here beyond "exaggerated". ("Wrong".) Please see User talk:Wwikix for a rationale for the block. I encourage you all to keep an eye on their talk page and copy their comments, if they have any, to this ANI thread. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Wwikix's response to the block notification by Drmies (who has been rolling back edits made by Wwikix after he was asked to desist), in full: "Undo the rolling back of my recent edits, they are constructive edits." Largoplazo (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies. That has certainly allowed the dust to settle for the time being. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I am very unhappy with this. Next up, I am afraid they'll start digging in. All that was required was a little bit of cooperation and a brief pause, at least to stave of an immediate block. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It was the only thing to be done: this way, we have the time to examine and repair any damage, whilst at the same time talking to W. and seeing if he is salvageable as an editor (which I don't [think I] doubt for a minute, but some of his TP remarks are rather opaque to me at this point). Plenty of time though. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I left a message on their talk page as well. They appear to have blinders on, all I can do is try to provide some guidance moving forward. I have no idea how this ends, but blocking was the only logical reaction, so I endorse that action by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think there is not much to fear that this editor will "dig in". He seems to be interested only in doing his thing, what he thinks is right, and doesn't listen to anybody anyways, both on the Dutch Wikipedia and now here. A block is probably the best thing for an editor who is so obviously not here to participate in community editing. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

AndrewOne

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

---

AndrewOne continues restoring parts of his preferred, contested revision to Terrence Malick, where I had opened an RfC days ago to avoid his kind of edit warring. AndrewOne refuses to abstain from restoring his bold edit and adhere to WP:BRD, continuing to remove portions of the content his revision had originally removed. Another editor has already voiced disagreement with AndrewOne's revision at the RfC. His revision is plagued by poorly sourced original research and puffery, which multiple editors at the RfC have acknowledged. The RfC is open, AndrewOne knows full well it is, I've warned him several times, at the RfC and at his talk page, but he continues behaving this way, reverting in lieu of getting consensus, discussing, etc. I warned him I would report him if he continued and that the article might end up being page-protected from everyone; he did not care. Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• 00:02, 18 October 2016
• 13:55, 18 October 2016‎
• 10:35, 19 October 2016
• 00:07, 20 October 2016
• 10:03, 20 October 2016
• 12:32, 20 October 2016

In the latter two revisions, his removal of the same material is explained first that the source wasn't referring to critics, and then in the second, explained that the source was referring to critics but was wrong in doing so. Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I prevented the lead section from misleadingly telling readers that three of Malick's films initially polarized critics. Dan56 supposedly provided two sources for the argument that The Tree of Life did, but those two sources turned out to center (as I have told him), on audience responses rather than on critical responses, and are thus inapplicable. He has also used as a source a sentence from an author of a book about war films. I have attempted to explain why review aggregators such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are far better sources for determining critical reception. AndrewOne (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So along with being a poor contributor of original research, you're also a liar ([16], [17]) Also, the book by the film scholar about war films (since Malick's The Thin Red Line was a war film) actually verifies this "to be engaging and unique, while others consider it pretentious and gratuitous" bit, which you decided to pick and leave in your butchering of the lead. Pick and choose what works for us, right? Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

When a film is "Certified Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes and receives an 85/100 on Metacritic, one's choice to dispute the statement that it polarized critics is not an instance of picking and choosing whatever works. Review aggregators are called review aggregators for a reason.

Also, please refrain from name calling (e.g. "windbag") on "Talk:Terrence Malick", as well as on all other talk pages. It is unhelpful and rude. AndrewOne (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Review aggregators are useful, but they have weaknesses and limitations. You can't simply ignore the this and synthesize from them that a film was critically acclaimed. For example, see this discussion at WikiProject Film, where there was a consensus not to use Metacritic to authoritatively describe a film's reception. Still, this is mostly a rehash of the RFC debate, which I already contributed to. Two editors on the talk page (Dan56 and me) have identified the changes as original research, and this should be respected – let the RFC play out and don't change the text until you can get a consensus to do so. AndrewOne has a point about Dan56's incivility, so maybe Dan56 can try a little harder to stay calm during discussions he finds frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Content dispute and edit war. This does not belong here at ANI. It belongs at the RfC, and if there is edit-warring, on WP:ANEW (after user-talk warning). Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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

AFD started by ineligible editor in WP:ARBPIA area

First thing that user Good_times_charlie,_he_walks_like_this (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does it open an AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force_(3rd_nomination). That is not normal behavior for new users but what more according WP:ARBPIA3 new users are not allowed to edit such articles at all and certainly not start AFD discussions.So this discussion should be closed probably.--Shrike (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that the discussion has already started, I see no harm in letting it continue. This editor does not have the ultimate say over the result of the detabe. Number 57 17:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. If someone is not eligible to edit an article, then they can't go to AFD with it without violating policy. It is suspicious that a new user would start in AFD, so my sockpuppet radar is going off, but regardless, this is clearly a violation of Arbitration restrictions. This is more of an AE issue than ANI, but there, I would say block and delete AFD, and ask for a CU to take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Should I take it to WP:AE then?--Shrike (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What more I see three users votes that not allowed to edit there. --Shrike (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think yes, AE, mention all the voters and let them hash it out there, and notify them of course. ANI is not well suited for this, as it is an administrative decision to interpret Arb's rulings, not so much community's. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Smells like dirty socks to me. Might be worth running by WP:SPI. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC).

More so the reason to move it to AE, you will find more CU bits around there and it is easier to get a binding solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Good times charlie, he walks like this has been indef blocked as a sock by User:DeltaQuad, describing it as "Someone's obvious sock behind a proxy". The AfD discussion does not look bad as discussions go, but there are a number of participants who are not extended-confirmed. The least stressful option might be to let the AfD run to a normal conclusion but then have the admin closer not include the opinions of those unqualified under ARBPIA3. Anyone who wants to warn the non-qualified voters not to continue could do so. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I left a note in the AfD pointing to the WP:ARBPIA3 restriction. I hope that others agree that the AfD should run normally but the ineligible votes should not be counted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Close the AfD Allowing an AfD begun by an editor not permitted to do so effectively undermines the rule. For the same reason we normally revert edits, even non-controversial ones, added by banned editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If it was a fresh AFD I'd agree, but I think enough people have now engaged with it in good faith that it's probably better to let it run. It's running towards a "no consensus" anyway so it's not like the status quo is going to change. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC).

User:MidasHotel20 mass moving pages without consensus, against naming conventions

MidasHotel20 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been on a spree, mass moving nearly 500 pages during the last year without any discussion or explanation, making incorrect page moves that against the naming conventions in WP:PLACE, MOS:JAPAN#Place_names, WP:NAME, and WikiProject Japan's guidelines. For example, he has removed the prefecture names from article titles, making them ambiguous, he has changed WP:BLP people's names, fiddled with capitalisations, category names, etc.

For example, MidasHotel20 moved Mamushi to "Japanese pit viper" without any discussion or explanation. The move is without consensus and inconsistent with the naming conventions in WP:NAME as discussed on the talk page Talk:Mamushi.

Could there please be a mass revert of these moves?

I am notifying MidasHotel20 of this ANI discussion.

85.255.234.37 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy it. MOS:JAPAN#Place_names seems to talk of 'when disambiguation is needed', which it is not in the case of all those for which the prefecture name has gone. Japanese pit viper sounds like WP:EN. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

   The point is that MidasHotel20 is moving hundreds of articles without saying anything. It is difficult to understand his reasons because he does not use edit summaries, he does not participate in WikiProject discussions, and he does not seem to reply to comments on his talk page or on article talk pages. User:DAJF made a previous criticism of his page moves on his talk page, but he has never replied and he has carried on mass moving hundreds of pages.

   Those Japan articles have all been assessed by WikiProject Japan as per MOS:JAPAN. Removing the prefecture names from articles is clearly without consensus. It seems to me that MidasHotel20 should be trying to build consensus first to show there is a need to do mass moves of hundreds of pages. The user, however, does not seek consensus. He never replies to comments and ignores previous criticism of his page moving.

   In the case of "Japanese pit viper", it is an ambiguous title because it includes all species of Japanese pit vipers, and all except one of them are irrelevant to the article. "Mamushi" is the better title because it refers uniquely to the species G. blomhoffii which is the subject of the article. "Mamushi" is also the WP:EN term used in the English literature, as shown in the citations to WP:EN peer-reviewed WP:RS. Therefore, it seems to me from WP:TITLE that the best title is Mamushi. This is discussed in more detail on the talk page Talk:Mamushi.

85.255.234.34 (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

An editor who will not communicate can be problematic, I agree. I have not looked at the history or lack thereof of his/her communications. And you may well be right about vipers. You have yet to make anything approaching a case on the much larger matter of place names. The standing consensus that I understand on wikipedia is to use the common name of the thing being described in the article. I see nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia:Article titles nor MOS:JAPAN that mandates or even suggests that prefecture names should be used, in situations in which disambiguation is not required. And it is unavoidably the case that disambiguation was not requred for all of those which were successfully moved back to their settlement name sans disambiguator. So I suppose the possibility exists that if you're getting on the editors case about a consensus breach in a situation in which consensus is not being broken, your overtures are being spurned. Certainly, right now, I find myself more concerned about your insistance that another editor is doing something wrong in a situation in which the editor appears to be doing a perfectly consensual thing, than I am about the viper business or the alleged lack of communication. Where *exactly* is your evidence that there is consensus for the inclusion of prefecture names in articles titles of Japanese settlements for which disambiguation is not required? What should we make of this ANI listing if you are unable to point to such evidence? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

   The issue is a total lack of communication when his edits are challenged. This is not a future problem; it is having a current impact on the quality of Wikipedia as well as taking up other editors' time needlessly. He never replies to comments. He is ignoring this ANI despite its having been mentioned on his talk page and he has continued editing afterwards. I see the same editor was the subject of another similar recent ANI thread ANI only a few days ago regarding one of his many page moves (it was reverted). He ignored the ANI.

• Here is an example of a bad title resulting from one of his page moves moved Nago, Okinawa to Nago which is ambiguous because there are at least 13 completely different "Nago":

南居 (Nago), 南瑚 (Nago), 名古 (Nago), 名呉 (Nago), 名子 (Nago), 名護 (Nago), 名郷 (Nago), 奈古 (Nago), 奈呉 (Nago), 奈胡 (Nago), 姓護 (Nago), 那古 (Nago), 長尾 (Nago)

• Another example: moved Uruma, Okinawa to Uruma which is ambiguous because there are at least 13 completely different Uruma:

売間 (Uruma), 宇流麻 (Uruma), 宇瑠間 (Uruma), 宇留間 (Uruma), 宇留麻 (Uruma), 漆間 (Uruma), 潤間 (Uruma), 爪間 (Uruma), 粉間 (Uruma), 粳間 (Uruma), 賣間 (Uruma), 閏間 (Uruma), 閠間 (Uruma)

• The same problem affects more of his page moves but I have not checked all of them; there are far too many of them. Japanese place names are ambiguous in English. Keeping the prefecture in the title helps to make it clearer which place is meant. Unfortunately it is not easy to know because if you do not know Japanese, you will not know when a name that is transliterated into English is ambiguous.

Looking at his page moves in more detail, I see this is about much more than place names. His incorrect page moves include Category:People from Fukuoka (city) (reverted), capitalisation changes ("Kōri no ue ni Tatsu yō ni" → "Kōri no Ue ni Tatsu Yō ni" reverted), wrong changes to people's names (WP:BLP applies to Mai Satoda (reverted), Mikiyo Ohno (not yet reverted), Chieko Nohno (not yet reverted), Maki Ohguro reverted), erroneous place names Gotemba, Shizuoka (reverted), wrong names Sumitomo Masatomo (not yet reverted). Editing [18] while logged in and also editing [19] while logged out via an IP address in Makati city, the Philippines (Seiko Hashimoto). I could go on. This pattern of disruptive edits needs to stop. He needs to listen and communicate. 85.255.234.4 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• No comment on the place names, but I've moved the pit viper article back to its original name. There does appear to be enough evidence that COMMONNAME uses "Mamushi" and that the pit viper name is ambiguous. This should now be discussed.

And looking through the contribution history, there are moves that concern me - specifically the amendments to romanised names and changes of some people names. I would not wish to give the impression that I think there is nothing to discuss. I see the single instance when someone has informed the user of romanisation issue - but not in a way demanding a response. I see no other engagement with the user on their talk page. ANI is not a substitute for talking to the user first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've left a link to WP:COMMUNICATE and informed him that he needs to use summaries when moving, which seems like WP:COMMONSENSE, if he keeps it up and refuses to explain, we might not have a choice but to block until he communicates. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I hope it leads to an improvement. We will probably not have long to wait to see whether it does. 85.255.234.4 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The editor is continuing to edit (without edit summaries and without discussion) while logged out, as per the following example. 85.255.236.93 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Similar pattern of edits in Japan and Philippines articles by 49.150.36.119 (contribs)

Technically sockpuppetry, to avoid scrutiny. I've blocked the ip, left a note on his page, but patience is about exhausted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

He is back at it again. WP:SOAPBOX WP:NOTLISTENING. He is still ignoring this ANI and has still not discussed any of his controversial page moves such as Talk:Mamushi or any of the hundreds of others. 85.255.233.180 (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• The last diff provided makes we wonder about WP:CIR issues, and I would like another admin to take a look, since it is about an AFD I started. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a one month block, in the effort to ensure a dialog. No objection if someone wants to do an indef block but then check back to see if that leads to a response. These moves are not exactly vandalism but the ones that go against naming conventions risk creating a lot of inconsistency. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've done just that, I think EdJohnston's approach is the right one to start with a month, which should get his attention. Note that I kind of let him slide for logging out and editing as an IP. Hopefully, this won't be a problem in the future, but at that point, I would consider an indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This IP address is located at City Hall, London, Ontario, Canada

Just a note to Admins as I see other contribs from this IP range, this is a governmental office bldg that has edited City of London in the past as an example. It may be in the interest of neutrality to give this user an editnotice or some other means of conflict of interest deterrence. Thanks and regards, 198.20.47.158 (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi 198.20.47.158, thank your for the note, but this is not really the best place to post this. In order to deal with these IP addresses accordingly, we place templates on the IP talkpages that state what type of IP that it is, and where it is registered to. I have gone ahead and posted this template on your IP talkpage for you, as it is registered to University of Western Ontario. Regards. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and accusations

Mztourist (talk) is repeatedly issuing personal attacks and false accusations about me here despite my best efforts to keep the discussion constructive. This is disrupting the progress of the discussion and resolution of the issue. Could you please intervene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

While I know it runs afoul of WP:AGF, I'm curious about something that's probably also going to be on the nearest passing admin's mind: how are you this well versed in how Wikipedia works? Other than two edits from May of this year and June 2007, your first edits were just over two days ago. Have you ever edited under a different identity? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Z07x10, and a quick look at the talk page in question (Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon) shows that there are valid reasons for believing that the IP is a sock of site banned User:Z07x10. It's not just Mztourist who believes that, BTW, but other editors too, even though the IP chose to report only Mztourist... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:DUCK to me..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The edit pattern as well as the behavior on the articles and talk pages is identical to Z07x10. --McSly (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

My thanks to the previous users who have pointed out the absurdity of this complaint, which is an obvious counterattack by a suspected sock (who supposedly has only been active on WP for 2 days!) to my SPI. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga ※ talk I looked up how to go about complaining about a user on Wikipedia as my use history will validate. I should also clarify that this complaint is not a result of his SPI, it is a result of his persistent derailing of a talk topic by continuing the allegations on that page. With the SPI already raised, this was both disruptive, defamatory and unnecessary. I should also add that Mztourist (talk) has accused another user Draco2k (talk) with the same charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Rajasekharan Parameswaran

User:Rajasekharan Parameswaran is an undisclosed COI editor, who has extensively edited his own page, Rajasekharan Parameswaran. Unfortunately, there are a number of issues at hand.

• Firstly, the undisclosed COI- despite a notice on his talk page and on the article's talk page, he has not disclosed it as required.

• This is problematic as he is making very promotional edits- see the state of the article before I mass-removed a lot of promotional cruft.

• There is also a second problem- as he hasn't disclosed his COI; in not doing so he has not actually proved that he is Rajasekharan Parmeswaran. This is problematic because he's now started to upload his own artwork- see his contrib history. Despite one of his files being listed at FfD (and duly deleted), he still failed to provide proof that he was Mr Parameswaran.

• This is problematic because a section of his page is copied and pasted from his own biography- the section entitled "Early life" can be found in its entirety here- an article published in 2009, predating the Wikipedia source.

I opened a COIN thread in September, but rather embarrassingly no one responded. He has continued with these edits and uploading of his own artwork, hence I have taken it to ANI, as he has not responded on any talk pages, or noticeboards, or FfD. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

He has now replied on my talk page, but has taken away completely the wrong message, saying that he won't upload his own artworks, which was not the point at all. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to make a big deal about the non disclosure. While technically it's true he hasn't formally disclosed, realistically when someone called "Rajasekharan Parameswaran" is editing an article called Rajasekharan Parameswaran, adding the name to List of Tamil people, etc; most editors are more likely to see that this could be a problem then a formal disclosure on the user page of an editor called "Anrdt" which many people aren't even going to see. More importantly, does editing an article on yourself and adding yourself to other pages, even if fame probably helps your business as an artist even fall under Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure? My impression is it doesn't, in which case it's questionable if disclosure is mandatory or just very strongly encouraged. I would be slightly concerned about the issue of Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names namely whether the editor concerned is really who they say they are or there is a possibility of impersonation but this is a WP:BLP issue rather than COI issue. Practically, we don't always require confirmation, especially when the editing is mostly limited to stuff relating to themselves. In fact, I'm pretty sure we've accepted requests to remove birthdates, deletion and other stuff where a subject's wishes are sometimes taken into account without actually confirming it's the subject. The copyright issue is related and quite concerning. I would suggest the text is removed until we have confirmation that the copyright holder has authorised re-use. Nil Einne (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 acting in an intentionally disruptive manner

In a dispute on The Pirate Bay (TPB) Objective3000 is being intentionally disruptive and ignoring a source in favor of personal opinion. He has also interpreted it as illegitimate because he believes it to be an unreliable quote despite no evidence that it is (and more importantly giving no sources that it is). He also alludes to a comment warning in the page, a practice that is not allowed per MOS:COMMENT.

The dispute relates to whether or not TPB should be listed as non-profit, and the source in question: [20], listing it as transferred to a non-profit. No sources given stating anything else. Distrait cognizance (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The source you give links to a "403 Not allowed" site. Do you have an actual link? Moriori (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? It works for me, could this be related to the internet outages today? Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am still getting the following message "403 Not allowed. The page you've requested is not accessible - yet. If you're looking for something on PCMag.com, please use the search engine!". Oh joy, if I knew what I was searching for I'd do a search. Moriori (talk)

Wow. Can’t believe he actually brought this here. Long ago, there were long discussions on whether The Pirate Bay (TPB) is or is not non-profit. The consensus was that the claim by TPB was disputed and controversial – particularly since the judge at the TPB trial said that they were not. The consensus was that the claim of non-profit status could not be placed in the infobox as it was disputed and controversial, and an infobox should not include disputed info. To stop edit-warring, a note was added to the infobox not to change the status and why. Editor distrait cognizance removed the warning and the long-standing text, replacing it with a previously rejected claim of non-profit status multiple times. He bases this on a puff piece that merely copied, word for word, text from the TPB site, which is run by anonymous people who have been on the run from country to country for years. It’s uncertain as to what country they are located and their names are still unknown. He refused to gain consensus and issued a threat to take this to ANI twelve minutes after I reverted. I really think that bothering ANI after 12 minutes is a tad disruptive.

Incidentally, he also failed to mention this ANI incident on my talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• The claim of "non-profit" in that page doesn't appear to have the same meaning as the legal definition of a non-profit, and was a weak claim based on a weak claim, so I wouldn't make any edit based on that singular mention, particularly since a court of law has deemed them non-eligible as a non-profit. "Non-profit" isn't just a claim, it is a legal status, a type of corporation or organization that is recognized in law. Saying this is well sourced is false. More to the point, if there is a long standing consensus, and the bold change is reverted, then the burden is clearly on Distrait cognizance to leave it alone until they can form a consensus on the talk page. Continuing to add it back is edit warring, against the principles in WP:BRD, and is clearly disruptive. Stop it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Distrait cognizance, you skipped all of the dispute resolution options. ANI is not a suitable place to resolve content disputes. Please go back to the talk page, make your arguments for including this content, and if you're not able to persuade the article's regular editors, you can seek a third opinion, or start an RfC.- MrX 21:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is not about the content dispute, but one about ignoring sources in favor of personal opinion. As that violates policy it is an AN/I issue. If a single source, or even a link to the alleged consensus was brought forth this wouldn't need to be here. MOS:COMMENT does not allow such comments if they try to forbid users from making an edit, it might be appropriate to link to a discussion, but there was no such link. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

1.) It was not personal opinion. It was long-standing consensus. 2.) You threatened another editor for a single revert and brought this to ANI after 12 minutes with no attempt at resolution or in gaining consensus yourself. Objective3000 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• • What Objective said. And MOS or no MOS, we often use hidden comments when there is a consensus and there is problem with people changing it against that consensus. It is for their benefit. See also: WP:IAR. MOS is a set of important guidelines, but it isn't chiseled into stone. Take it to the talk page of the article and have a discussion there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There is discussion on the talk page, and progressing better now with more voices present. However, the issue at hand surrounds the "shoot-first, ask questions later" attitude behind the multiple reverts without so much as an attempt to bring forth sources. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Once you have been told there is an existing consensus, the burden is on you. The "source" you brought is not adequate and falls very far short of what would be expected to change consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• After Mr X. reverted to consensus, Destrait cognizance once again, just now, changed it to non-profit -- disputed. He is edit-warring even during an ANI. Objective3000 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

May I request that a sysop revert to consensus during discussion? Objective3000 (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Admin can't do that, that would have us getting involved in content. As "admin", our role is maintenance and behavioral. Doing so would mean we can no longer act as admin on that page during this dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that. But, I don't want to bother ANI with an edit-warring complaint -- obvious as it may be. Was hoping an uninvolved admin could just revert to consensus for now. It's kinda weird now. It says non-profit, and as a ref, provides an article stating that it isn't. Even if this made some kind of sense, it should be reverted for WP:EW. Objective3000 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone else did it, which keeps me free to use the admin tools if needed, which is the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. Unfortunately, he partially reverted the fix reintroducing the poor source while discussion and the ANI continue. He has also erased the suggestion posted to his user page. Perhaps another gentle suggestion is in order that he stop editing the article while the discussion continues. Objective3000 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright vio again

A recent edit of Mahussain06 has the sentence "This would be the first time Golovkin fails to fight three times in a calender year since 2012" which is very similar to the sentence "This will be the first time Golovkin has not boxed three times in a calendar year since 2012" from [21] The user has already been blocked for doing this before. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is a limited number of ways you can paraphrase that, and it is just one sentence. You have to say "calendar" to differentiate types of year, same for "first time", "since 2012". If this one sentence is the only problem, I don't see it as problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more in their recent edits but that was just one I picked up at a glance. You would think to give them the benefit of the doubt if they had not consistently done it before and been blocked for it. See some examples at WP:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests. (The user changed their name from Ruthless-paki) 80.235.147.186 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Also here is the rest of the sentence "when he first came to the United States and teamed up with HBO" and from the same source "when he first came to the United States to fight and linked up with HBO." That would be easy to paraphrase and could at least have the entire sentence rearranged. I would say copyright violations are problematic. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thos aren't compelling examples, meaning I'm not going to block for those, they are paraphrasing and isolated sentences that again, can only be said so many ways. I'm not going on a fishing expedition through his contribs. If you file the report, you need to provide enough evidence to show infringement. More than two isolated sentences that individually and taken alone, are not copyright infringement. The burden in on you to provide clear and convincing evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It's actually one sentence and can be said in many ways. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is it being said? Sounds WP:CRYSTAL to me. Is there something special about fighting three times in a year? Even when the year ends and it presumably becomes a true statement, so what?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the passage and warned the user before coming here, because it looks like a pretty clear-cut case of copyvio/too-close paraphrasing to me. The source is the ESPN article, which also says that the fighter prides himself on being in a lot of fights. That's the crux of why it's an important detail. I have gone ahead and re-written the material to demonstrate an example of how this passage could be worded. "Golovkin prides himself on being an extremely active fighter, and this is the first time since 2012 that he has been in fewer than four three fights." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat at Damien Walter

Legal threat issued at Damien Walter by this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Walter&oldid=745607114 the legal threat being contained in a delete template. User issuing legal threat was User talk:171.100.99.12 Special:Contributions/171.100.99.12. I am not sure if it is a dynamic or static IP. I reverted the edit. Safiel (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you handled it about right. The edit was reverted and a level 4 warning dropped on the IPs talk page. If there is any repetition I'd support a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-involved party: The IP has now been disruptive past the level 4 warning. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-involved party: And are continuing to do so, reverted again... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is case of WP:DOLT. You weren't the only one adding contentious unreferenced BLP material, granted, but it is contentious unreferenced BLP material nonetheless. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have placed a request for a temporary semi-protect at WP:RPP to stop the back and forth so an uninvolved party or parties can step in and sort BLP matter out. Safiel (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears that this situation is going to resolve itself. Damien Walter is at AfD which is turning into a WP:SNOWBALL for delete. Since that outcome will obviously be satisfactory to the original offender, unlikely we will see him again. Safiel (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Request 3 Month Rangeblock on Disruptive IPv6 Range: 2605:e000:6201:1300::/64

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

---

*2605:e000:6201:1300::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Over the past couple of months, the person behind this IP range has been disruptively removing sourced content into various airport articles, and replacing it with purposefully incorrect and unsourced content. Here are a list of the disruptive IP's that I was able to find:

• 2605:e000:6201:1300:2052:7563:a626:bbee (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Only 1 minor test edit, but still part of the same IP range, never warned or blocked

• 2605:e000:6201:1300:28f8:2917:e05e:560e (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Edit warring, unsourced content, vandalism, warned – Blocked for 31 hours by Materialscientist (08:03, 12 October 2016)

• 2605:e000:6201:1300:390f:d5c7:701d:656e (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Blatantly childish vandalism, warned, persisted past level 3 warning, never blocked (Note: I'm counting the welcome message as the level 1 warning on this one...)

• 2605:e000:6201:1300:79e6:3550:a1a9:5c57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Edit warring, removing sourced content/replaced with unsourced, obviously incorrect content, rapidly reverting other editor's contributions w/o any explanation, warned, never blocked.

There may be more IP's that I have not been able to uncover, but according to this IP range calculator, making a block on the /64 subnet range will not have too much collateral damage – which is why I imposed the block to be lengthy in duration, with my proposal being a 3 month block, but an admin who looks into this case of course, may choose to perform a different block duration if they choose to... :-)

Because of the disruption from this IP range, the following articles have had to be recently protected:

• Portland International Airport (twice, each for 1 month by KrakatoaKatie & Oshwah)
• Seattle–Tacoma International Airport (once, for 1 month by Vanamonde93)

With the evidence/information that I have given here, would an admin that knows how to perform rangeblocks be able to perform this block? Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. Please stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Declined. I don't question the fact that disruption is taking place from these IP addresses at all. It's definitely happening, but it is not happening at a frequent enough rate for me to justify that a range block is needed. This also includes an individual block of the IPs reported; all of them are stale to the point that blocking them would be pointless and yield no benefit. Neither reported articles appear to be under enough disruptive edits at a high enough rate to justify protection. I think we just need to keep an eye on things, and report problems to AIV to be dealt with on an individual basis, and the articles re-evaluated for protection needs during the time that disruption is actively occurring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. Thanks for taking your time to look into this... I wasn't asking that we block the IP's individually, since they are really stale. More or less, I was just wondering if a rangeblock could be applied in order to prevent further disruption from this IP range in the future, and it didn't look like a block would affect any other editors. Though, I completely understand your reasoning for declining, and I will try to keep an eye on the pages, so the IP's can be reported to AIV, or if they get access to another IP range (which shouldn't happen, but if it miraculously does for whatever reason...) then I will go to RFPP. Thanks! :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 because they're still vandalizing today. The /64 is one customer's internet connection, so there won't be any collateral damage. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Creation of new WP:ARBPIA article but not eligible user

And again trouble in WP:ARBPIA area a "new" user HumanRightsUnderstanding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an I/P conflict article(with perfect wiki syntax) Issa Amro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that he is not allowed to create per WP:ARBPIA3.This article should be speedy deleted.I think its clear cut case so I didn't take to WP:AE but if something there is maybe broader issue here I will be happy to do it.--Shrike (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am a new user, and this is the first wikipedia article that I've ever written. If you're questioning the article because of the syntax, I need to say that I researched wikipedia tutorial pages a lot and experimented with the preview button until it seemed right, since I wanted to present a good result, and saved the text every so often on a google doc. If you are in doubt about the context, I would suggest that you follow some of the references, especially the statement issued by the UN special rapporters, or simply google "Issa Amro." If it is about the article not being relevant enough, then I don't see why there is an article on activist Bassem Al-Tamimi and there are already at least three other wikipedia articles mentioning the subject of this article. Is there a way to keep the article but have a contribution from an eligible author, if eligibility is the issue here? --HumanRightsUnderstanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanRightsUnderstanding (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It has some dubious sourcing, but not entirely; perhaps this is a case of WP:NOTBURO and to WP:IAR. It's not particularly tendentious or attacking? And if HMU is a new user, they can hardly be expected to know of WP:ARBPIA3, I'd imagine.

Of course, this is all on the assumption that the new user is indeed that; if it turns out that they are are footwear-related, then the usual ploughing of salt into the ground etc. should probably occur. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed this article and it seems like the type of content we should keep. Also, there is no speedy deletion provision for enforcing Arbcom remedies, as far as I know.- MrX 16:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look and from my mind the article is extraordinarily slanted and hagiographic, but that's not all that uncommon in this topic area from both sides. It's not so bad that it requires speedy deletion, but now the original author is in the odd position where they're not allowed to edit an article they created. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC).

I should have been clearer: it seems like the type of subject that we should keep, and much of the content is at least salvageable from what I can see. Of course, if the creator is a sock, the article should be deleted under WP:CSD#G5.- MrX 01:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Kuru, you blocked this range before: long term abuse, you said. Email me if you like--or get a real CU to look at this. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, e-mail sent. Kuru (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Drmies Any update on this?--Shrike (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Pity I'm sitting at Five Guys waiting for some hamburgers, and no email on my phone. Later! Drmies (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sacrilege. Presumably you are bound to a region bereft of our lord Whataburger. Kuru (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

If I recall, I was something of a wiki-syntax savant early on, and we have "Show preview", so the perfect wiki-syntax argument is not a clincher for me on whether this user is a sockpuppet or not. If they are a new user, though, they seem to be missing the point that new users aren't allowed edit articles on this topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• What y'all need to decide is whether this article is worth keeping. Kuru, no Whataburger here, and I was kind of disappointed tonight. Do you know they charge 4.29 for a hotdog? Crazy. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Who goes to Five Guys for a hotdog? I mean seriously. Too bad Shake Shack hasn't made it to Tirana. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

As the author, I'd like to apologize for not realizing that I am not an eligible user to create the page. I should have been more established in the wiki community before going into a controversial subject like this one. But now that the page is created, (and should you choose to keep it), I don't have the chance to make improvements on it either. Also, I don't know if I can take any steps to verify that I really am a new user, but I'll be happy to do so. -- HumanRightsUnderstanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanRightsUnderstanding (talk • contribs) 12:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Shrike, depends on what you mean by "this". I'm kind of waiting to hear from Kuru about the range block, from which this editor comes. The other "this" is the article, where you all, the community, need to decide if you want to keep this even if it was made in violation of ARBPIA and/or, depending on what Kuru says, by a banned editor. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, can you re-send your response to my e-mail? Did not receive anything. Agressive spam filter that hates wikipedia, it seems. Looking now. Kuru (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not the person that triggered the range block, in any way I can tell. Totally different style, topics, intent, etc. Kuru (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've placed extended confirmed protection here as per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the March 2016 amendment strains the limits of the kind of prohibitions that ArbCom should be allowed to declare; those kinds of broad pronouncements which affect large numbers of future editors ought to be vetted by the community at large. And this particular proscription raises a lot potential issues, some of which are highlighted by this very instance; how is a new editor, operating in good-faith, to know about this restriction? And what are we to do with the work product of such an editor if it does not otherwise violate the discretionary sanctions scheme, nor any other conclusion of the line of ARBPIA cases?

In any event, since the amendment has created this situation (which is as-yet unique, but likely to be duplicated at some point), and we are forced to adopt an ad-hoc response, I'd argue for retention of the article, as the editor and his content do not give any signs of being representative of the kind of problem scenarios which that amendment/prohibition is designed to preempt. Yes, I agree the content has a slightly hagiographic bent, but on the whole, it's pretty decent material for a first outing (if this is indeed a new user--I give the benefit of the doubt, as a matter of AGF). More so than that, given the high profile of the article's subject and the upcoming trial, this topic is inherently notable, useful to our readers, and bound to be replicated by someone eventually, so we might as well start from the content HRU has produced. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User adding false info or removing info without explanation

User:58.120.40.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly removed or added false information the the articles Informal Talks and A Bright World. They are both talks shows where a group of foreigners representing different countries discuss issues.

On the Informal Talks page, this user has:

• removed info about the countries the representatives represent.(Link)
• added false information about the english names of representatives (Link).

I have reverted these edits stating my reasons in the edit summary (Edit 1)(Edit 2).
However this user has simply re-added the false information they previously added, and removed information they removed before, without any explanation.(Link 1)(Link 2)
I reverted the edits once again and left a message on User talk:58.120.40.69 explaining my reasons for reverting his/her edits, and asking him/her to stop removing or adding false info. I explained in the message that some representatives represent 2 countries, which has been explained on the show numerous times. I also pointed out that the name "Nio Ruiz" he/she put down is actually false, because (Link) confirms that the representative's name is actually Antonio Coll, not Nio Ruiz. Because of this, I have also removed other names this user has added, as there are no sources confirming these are the correct names. However, the message has been ignored, and once again, this user has added/removed the same info, with no explanation.

On the A Bright World page, this user has:

• removed info about the countries the representative, Gaive Junior represents (Link). In Season 2 Episode 2, he has clearly stated he represents both the Republic of the Congo and France, not just the Congo.

I reverted the edit stating my reason in the edit summary (Link), and talked about this in the message I left on his/her talk page. However, once again, this user has removed this information again, with no explanation.

I would suggest perhaps warning this user on their talk page, but since this user doesn't respond to their talk page, and provides no explanation for their edits, perhaps blocking would be more suitable.

Thank you for your time.
PurpleLights123 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty of slightly editing the comment above to link to the IP's contribs and talk. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblocks needed for LTA

The Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal has been quite active, but I think we can make it more difficult for him if we block four ranges of IPs. Here are the IPs from the last three weeks:

• 2001:8003:2435:8600:A0E4:928E:FB42:1421 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 23 October 2016
• 2001:8003:2435:8600:C12A:2D61:8921:D1A6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 22 October 2016
• 2001:8003:2435:8600:E138:C8D6:2538:8F8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 21 October 2016
• 2001:8003:2435:8600:C4AF:E9A4:E8FF:93BA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 20 October 2016
• 2001:8003:2435:8600:4B9:63C4:BA91:85E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 19 October 2016
• 49.195.26.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 19 October 2016
• 2001:8003:2435:8600:D4E1:826:53FC:830B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 19 October 2016
• 2001:8003:2435:8600:C5D9:6DD2:C0AC:1137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 18 October 2016
• 49.195.29.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 18 October 2016
• 49.180.142.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 18 October 2016
• 49.180.151.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 18 October 2016
• 2001:8003:2435:8600:35F0:FEC9:8E67:4B25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 18 October 2016
• 49.180.144.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 15 October 2016
• 49.180.137.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 15 October 2016
• 49.195.6.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 15 October 2016
• 49.180.174.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14 October 2016
• 49.180.158.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14 October 2016
• 49.181.196.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 13 October 2016
• 49.195.35.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 12 October 2016
• 49.181.198.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 12 October 2016
• 49.195.19.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 11 October 2016
• 49.181.222.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 11 October 2016
• 49.180.152.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 October 2016
• 2001:8003:2435:8600:A116:65C8:2555:D6C4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 October 2016
• 49.180.166.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 October 2016
• 2001:8003:2435:8600:D19D:2125:E411:DDDB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 9 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:159C:178E:E1E2:28E6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 8 October 2016
• 49.181.203.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 6 October 2016
• 49.180.141.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.173.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.165.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 2001:8003:8511:2C00:DC52:57C:9B76:3E11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.160.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
• 49.180.138.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
• 101.188.6.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:B4:1162:81D:2001 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2–3 October 2016

To me it looks like we can block the following ranges and slow him down:

• 2001:8003:2435:8600:xxx
• 49.195.6.0 to 49.195.35.255
• 49.181.196.0 to 49.181.222.255
• 49.180.137.0 to 49.180.174.255

Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the possibility of a filter if I can nail down the behaviorism/phrases in use. Might be worth noting the best IP ranges would likely be:

• 2001:8003:2435:8600::/64 - contribs
• 49.180.128.0/18 - although that's a large range, the contribs show this is mainly the vandal

-- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: Samtar and I are working on some possible filters to help catch the edits from this vandal, no matter from which Australian IP they originate. I agree that 2001:8003:2435:8600::/64 should be blocked, along with 49.180.128.0/18. So that's two out of four suggested rangeblocks. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet and Samtar! Thanks for taking the time to list out these IPs and check out the ranges of both. From my calculations, the ranges appear to be as follows:

2001:8003:2435:8600::/64

49.180.128.0/18

Then on top of that, we have a few IPv6 addresses that are outside the average range (three of them), as well as a few IPv4 addresses that are in the 181 and 195 subnets, as well as one that's way outside the others (the 101.188.6.30 address). I'm interested to run a geolocate and see if all of these are from the same location. I'll also note that both pages involved with the LTA have been semi-protected (and with quite an extensive expiration) by NeilN and HJ Mitchell. I almost feel that it's pointless to block now. I'm going to dig a bit further and get additional thoughts... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite a few articles have been disrupted by this person, not just two! Here's a list of the recent targets:

• John McPhillips, semiprotected by Ymblanter for six months, expiring in April 2017.
• Just Dance Kids, pending changes protection by NeilN for six months, expired in April 2016.
• So Fresh: The Hits of Summer 2002, semiprotected by Favonian for one year, expired August 2016.
• Nothing's Real but Love
• So Fresh: The Hits of Winter 2012, semiprotected by Favonian for one year, expired August 2016.
• So Fresh, semiprotected by Ged UK for six months, expired June 2016.
• Hi-5 House, semiprotected by Ymblanter for three days in May 2016.
• The Spirit of Christmas 2006
• Template:NOW music albums
• Pixel Pinkie, semiprotected by CambridgeBayWeather for one week in October 2016.
• Bad (David Guetta and Showtek song), semiprotected by Ceradon for two months, expired September 2016.
• So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2016, semiprotected by CambridgeBayWeather for two weeks in October 2016.
• Hayley McElhinney
• Call Me Maybe
• Play School (Australian TV series)
• Isabella Dunwill, semiprotected by Ymblanter for one week in October 2016.
• Ah Yeah!, semiprotected by Ponyo for one month, expired October 2015.
• Hit Machine
• 50 Years 50 Shows
• Sergio Di Zio
• ARIA Music Awards of 2016
• Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song)
• Lips of an Angel
• Left Outside Alone
• Incomplete (Backstreet Boys song)
• Don't Cha
• Cut Snake (band)
• ARIA Award for Best Dance Release
• C-sharp minor, semiprotected by Favonian for one year, expired May 2016.
• Nigel Pilkington
• Now: The Hits of Summer 2011
• Triple J Hottest 100, 2015
• ARIA Award for Song of the Year
• 3e
• Now: The Hits of Spring 2010
• Down (Jay Sean song)
• Somebody That I Used to Know
• List of artists who reached number one on the Australian singles chart
• Say My Name (Peking Duk song)
• Pyramid (Australian game show), semiprotected by Ymblanter for one month, expiring in November 2016.

There are more than these, but I have to go make an appointment. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

EF live but not yet disallowing at Special:AbuseFilter/802, with some updates to follow -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Keithchan1

User:Keithchan1 has been making mass changes to Hong Kong politics-related articles that are not properly sourced, sometimes nonsensical and I think sometimes amount to WP:OR. It's turned into an edit war so I'm coming here.

• example edit – unsourced and the use of the term "subjectivity" is unclear and unexplained
• uncited. Edit summary says that groups can only be classed as "localist" if they have been elected to the legislature, which makes no sense.
• uncited, I have never before heard the term "cosmopolitanism" in relation to HK politics. absent a reliable source and no Google search results, appears to be WP:OR

I guess this user has some beef with the classification of certain groups as "localists". Fine, but mass changes should be accompanied by citations to reliable sources. The sources should be inserted into the article, not just alluded to in the edit summary when challenged. Citobun (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Not rally surprising that the Hong Kong article would get some interest after the events in the LegCo last week. I wouldn't be too surprised if a few more editors start popping up on HK politics related sections and articles. Blackmane (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I also note that @Keithchan1: is a very new user and is willing to discuss on talk pages, thus I would say direct them to the principle of BRD and beware of biting them. However, they should be cautioned not to let their political views affect their edits. Blackmane (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

---

Yesterday I PRODded a new article (Universe (journal)) and subsequently took it to AFD after the article creator, Redwheel removed the PROD. The AFD discussion rapidly degenerated into a litany of personal attacks by Redwheel on my integrity. I politely requested that we stick to the issues and refrain from personal attacks. The conflict spilled over to George Smoot. I again requested that Redwheel refrain from personal attacks and stick to the issues. I was answered by this rant, telling me that I am "incompetent and ignorant", "by no means able to conduct such a discussion in good faith", and to "go away" to avoid "appearing as ridicolous as you are now". My polite requests not having any effect, I am coming here. (PS: the last rant mentions the fact that I am an admin. Please note that at no point during this conflict have I used my tools or even mentioned the fact that I am an admin, as that is clearly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Thanks.)--Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short holiday from the project in order to allow Redwheel the opportunity to regain their equalibrium. Some of those remarks were pretty choice, and in any case totally unnecessary. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Randykitty - Thank you for filing an ANI report regarding Redwheel's responses and arguments in the Universe (journal) AFD discussion, as well as Talk:George Smoot. I appreciate you for remaining patient, attempting to repeat and explain Wikipedia's policies, and for keeping a cool head and for keeping the discussion aimed towards the issues at-hand (even when the other person was not). The only comment that you made that threw me off a little bit was here, where you state that "per WP:BOLD it is up to you to justify your addition". WP:BOLD states the opposite - it states that those who feel that their changes are improvements to the article are encouraged to "go for it", be bold, and make your change without the need to know every single rule. However, when these additions are challenged by another editor, the burden of asserting verifiability, reliability, and content justification relies on the person who is adding the information being questioned and challenged (per WP:PROVEIT, which is what I believe that you meant to refer to). It's no big deal at all and doesn't count against you, but it may confuse a new editor if you state this and then point them to a guideline that says, "have at it!" (they just don't read far enough along to notice the paragraph you're referring to. They get maybe 1-2 paragraphs down and then go, "wtf?") - this, however, is not relevant to the real issue at hand, which is Redwheel's conduct and behavior in both the AFD and the talk page of the George Smoot article.

Redwheel - Your behavior in these discussions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) is unacceptable per Wikipedia's policies on civility and no personal attacks, specifically where you have cast aspersions toward Randykitty. I am leaving you a final warning on your talk page regarding your behavior - this behavior is unacceptable, against Wikipedia's five core principles, and even not in-line with your request here, where you ask everyone involved to "not be destructive" and to "act in a constructive way". If this sort of civility continues, you will be blocked for violating this policy. You are to discuss grievances, disputes, and disagreements by keeping the conversation directed towards the issue at-hand, and you are to drop the stick when asked to do so or it is clearly time to do so. I highly recommend that you take a break from these discussions, review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I have provided in this response, and return to the discussion when you feel that you can discuss your thoughts in a positive and constructive manner. Failure to do so can lead to being blocked. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah. I assumed that anybody reading BOLD would read further than "go at it" and arrive at the "challenged" part. Perhaps that's assuming too much... --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Again, figured I'd mention it. New users typically wont... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Croatoan21 – disruptive editing part 2

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

---

(cc @Euryalus, Dennis Brown:)

Following their block on 2 October, Croatoan21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned but their behaviour has not changed, unfortunately. They are still changing caps and stats without updating timestamps:

• László Kleinheisler: 1, 2, 3, 4
• Máté Vida: 1, 2, 3, 4
• and more.

Robby.is.on (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked two weeks. Perhaps he didn't notice the 2 day block, he is more likely to notice this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Lalapappa

This user and suspected socks have repeatedly added unsourced controversial content on N. Shanmugalingam, a BLP, despite numerous warnings and a brief block. I request a further block and full protection of the article.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Socking accusations belong elsewhere, preferably with some evidence in support. The user hasn't edited in several days. You didn't notify them of this discussion as you're required to do. Otherwise, you're doing very well.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Having a bad day? I'm not required to notify others of this discussion - the notice above only says "please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page". Some editors edit every day, others occasionally. Lalapappa has only edited N. Shanmugalingam in main space in the last 2½ years and he edited the article three days ago - I would say that was recent.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User violating his topic ban countless times each day

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

---

David Aaron is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and discussions covering Israel/Palestine, broadly construed. The user violates this ban daily. Despite repeated warnings in the last days [22], [23], [24], David Aaron keeps editing Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Gush Dan etc. Since the topic ban was put in place, the user has violated it at least 20 times. Even if one would argue that one can edit articles related to Israel/Palestine without touching on ARBPIA (which I doubt when "broadly construed" is used), edits such as this [25], go to the very heart of ARBPIA He's been given at least 3 "final warnings" to respect it, to no avail. This is making a mockery of the whole idea of TBAN as the user just goes on and on, ignoring it on a daily basis. Jeppiz (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I respect the Wikipedia policies to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia, however I really can't understand why was I put in the topic ban, and how do I be sure if an article is a part of the topic. I asked this question on my talk page but quite didn't get an answer. I don't understand how articles like Golan Heights, Tel Aviv, Gush Dan come under Israel/Palestine? By my recent edits I don't mean to violate, I just want to understand why was I put in the topic ban. Regards and Sorry. David Aaron ^talk 15:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ה-זפר: You don't understand how Gush Dan (fought over as part of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War), Golan Heights (occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War), and Tel Aviv (one of the most bombed cities in the region) don't fall under the Arab-Isreali conflict? Some editors here will probably find that very hard to believe, I assure you. Particularly when 'broadly construed'... _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

To avoid ARBPIA problems, look at the talk page of each article to see if it has the banner 'ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES.' Articles that have such a banner are off limits to you due to your ARBPIA ban. Some articles don't have the banner, such as Tel Aviv and Gush Dan. On those pages you should be OK so long as you don't touch anything that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The reasons for your ban are given at User talk:ה-זפר#AE and the sections below. It is not Wikipedia's problem that you have so many questions about your ban; you have received answers. If you truly have no idea what is going on you should work in a different area. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

So If I'm okay with editing Tel Aviv, Gush Dan,, as long as I don't touch anything related to ARBPIA, then why I'm being reported with them (top message by Jeppiz). The topic ban I understand is about Israel-Palestine conflict which surely includes Jerusalem, but Golan Heights is like Israel-Syria dispute and about I being reported for revert conflicts on Golan Heights, I think I got to have an explanation from the admin who added the topic ban to me, why were the other users involved in revert conflict not topic ban, and after a talk page discussion was under way to stop the revert conflict there, I was put on a topic ban. I feel sad about it. David Aaron ^talk 16:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

David Aaron, I cannot comment on why you got a topic ban, I was not involved in that. Personally, I have no problem with you and your edits. That's not the point, though. Even if you believe the topic ban to be wrong, you must follow it. And if you're not sure which areas you can edit, here's a piece of advice: do not edit any article in any way connected to Israel. I'm not saying every such article is covered by your ban, but if you can't tell that it's a topic ban violation to remove a map from Israel because you don't like how it depicts Israel's borders, then I'm afraid you will keep running into problems. Jeppiz (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This has all been explained to you in great detail on your talk page: see User talk:ה-זפר#Topic_ban"?. At least three of the people explaining this were administrators, and one was a former member of the arbitration committee. You are not going to get significantly different advice here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, About today's removal of UNOCHA map from the article, there was a talk page discussion under way to consider change/keep. As it was re added without consensus, I removed it. I was told again, "Until further consensus, leave it alone". It's not that I don't like how it depicts Israel's borders, It's actually like I wanted the map to be back after a consensus. The discussion in detail was to be about to add a map which included Golan Heights as "administrated currently/occupied territory/disputed" (in shades). I feel some editors get me wrong in their first encounters with me. I just wanted present facts (Purple Line to be shown as present defacto control) to be displayed in there. I'm now waiting for a further consensus, as told. But as I studied other UNOCHA maps today I got to learn a lot of UNOCHA maps of other countries similarly did not include disputed/administrated/occupied area with the country, I got to learn that UNOCHA maps shows the international border recognition of any country. David Aaron ^talk 16:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

David Aaron, don't you get it?? You are not allowed to edit this topic. No matter if you think you're right or wrong, you're banned from the topic. It's really that simple. I'm sorry to invoke WP:COMPETENCE, but if the user cannot get it after all these admins and other users have explained it over and over again, then it will just go on. Jeppiz (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

David Aaron, today you removed a map from the Israel article, for whatever reason. Since Israel is marked on its talk page with the ARBPIA template, it is off limits to you for editing. Please confirm you will make no more edits of any kind at the Israel article. If you don't do so, an admin may decide to block your account for persistent failure to follow your ban, after many explanations. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm getting cynical in my old age, but I'm not convinced he is as confused as he appears to be on the limits of the topic ban. If he is, then WP:CIR is an issue, if not, then he simply doesn't care. Either way, he should expect an indef block if he makes one more edit that violates the topic ban, and I wouldn't come here or AE first. I was about to block when EdJohnston made his last edit, so in that spirit I will hold off, but I do think it is an act. AGF is not a suicide pact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Since they are clearly testing their boundaries, may I suggest Dennis Brown, that 'no more edits of any kind at the Israel article' is indeed broadly construed and that it covers the previous articles mentioned. Otherwise, we'll be back here over Lebanon, Gaza strip, etc., each time. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I support Dennis's proposal of an indef block. The only way this editor's behavior makes sense is if he has difficulty with English, but he seems to understand English quite well. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't support an indefinite block. David's never been blocked before. Jumping from nothing to indefinite seems like a rather extreme escalation, no? Often, editors refuse to revise their behavior until their ability to edit is removed. A reasonable medium-term block should be tried before jumping to indefinitely barring them from contributing. One month seems reasonable to me, but certainly no longer than three months. It's a five second fix if they return to violating their topic ban after their block expires. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

For violating an Arb restriction after multiple warnings and a topic ban at WP:AE? No, an indef block is not extreme. Indef doesn't mean forever, it means we don't know how long, and how long is up to the person blocked. This is not the typical case. Here, I can't assume good faith and it looks like he is gaming the system. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In defense of David

I feel sorry for this guy. He was topic banned after a tiff with probably Wikipedia's most tendentious Syrian nationalist. He didn't defend himself at AE because he wasn't even properly notified: this-copy-and-paste URL is basically gobbledygook to someone not cognizant with wikiblabber like that. I tried to raise the issue here but nobody cared. The indef topic ban was also harsh for a "first offense", and the regular system-gamers reported around the same time for comparably poor behavior all wriggled off the hook due with some successful pleading and WP:NOTTHEMing from them and their buddies.

And it is difficult to know which articles are have been ARBPIAed and which haven't. I know, because I deliberately refuse to edit any article that has the dreaded banner or blue lock etc. Tel Aviv and Gush Dan most certainly aren't. Israel, yes. Israeli telephone companies? No. Israeli cigarette brands? No either. This is a ban from the conflict, not Israel.

Also, some of the "sanctioned articles" are absurd, like Hummus. In theory, David isn't allowed to edit that article, and we're supposed to put a big blue lock on it. (Incidently, the aforementioned Syrian nationalist was one of the editors responsible for the various rancorous disputes that lead to that banner having to be slapped on it.)

This guy may have a strong POV, but he is not the traditional ARBPIA POV-pusher. Nobody is suggesting his edits to Israeli towns, cities and companies are problematic. They're generally not subject to ARBPIA sanctions and we should give him a break. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone who is 'not the traditional ARBPIA POV-pusher' is still a POV pusher. He has a topic ban and he's violating it. Simple as. If he wants to appeal it, that's one thing, but I'm seeing IDHT instead. Katie^talk 00:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I dispute the claim that this user is a POV pusher. I see a good faith user who wanted to improve articles related to the Middle East, wandered onto the ARBPIA minefield and lost a limb. He has a personal POV born of a series of assumptions rather than part a deliberate effort to tilt the encyclopedia. I've seen a fair few POV-pushers in the sorry time I've observed that area, and I can tell you that Zionist POV-pushers never make improvements like this to Palestinian cellphone service providers. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Indef block should be the result of the very next edit on such obviously connected articles as Golan Heights, Tel Aviv, etc. It's very clear that David Aaron has not been following his topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• I understand the concern AnotherNewAccount, but his attitude during this investigation hasn't been reassuring. He's on his last bit of rope. No one want to block him, but there are and have been problems, and there should be no question how to avoid a block here. And if in doubt, ask an admin before editing that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I did follow my topic ban by not editing Golan Heights, Palestinian National Authority, Ramallah, State of Palestine or any other IL-PS topics. What I didn't know is that Tel Aviv, Gush Dan (city in Israel), and even Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict. I believe Golan is like IL-SY dispute, and I'm notified on topic ban of IL-PS topics.

On Golan Heights (this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds). The other user was not notified on revert conflict. and there was a post on my talk page saying in "you have too much of an Israeli slant in your editing style", whereas my edit was indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to just, occupied by Israel.

I'm sorry, I just don't want other editors to get wrong of me, I want some one to understand me. Thank you to AnotherNewAccount, to raise the issue. Regards David Aaron ^talk 01:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The user continues to defend his editorial position while not acknowledging his ban from ARBPIA articles and talk pages. Topic bans have value only for those who understand them and intend to follow them. It's a puzzling fact that he seems not to understand his ban. The only remaining option is a block. I've gone ahead with a one-year arbitration enforcement block of User:ה-זפר for violation of his AE ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict. If the editor wants this reviewed, I suggest filing an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, proper action. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

To the majority of casual editors - that is the majority of Wikipedia editors - terms like "DS", "ARBPIA", "AE", "ARBCOM block" etc. are bureaucratic gobbledygook. This is fine as it was always supposed to reign in the perennially problematic users who knew exactly what they were doing and where they were editing, not some random who wandered onto Golan Heights, tried to edit it just as he'd edited several other articles, and came up against one of the topic-area heavies. He dosn't understand the ban because he doesn't really understand the Israel-Arab conflict, has no interest in it, and is not here to push an agenda on it.

Sadly, it seems that David has decided to cease editing entirely anyway. Not surprising. Another casual editor chewed up and spat out by the bureaucratic Wikishredding machine. No wonder Wikipedia is losing editors. Will somebody bother to write a eulogy on WikiProject Editor Retention? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the acronyms are confusing, but he had them explained more than a few times and was very aware that he was on thin ice by virtue of this discussion. As far as "pushing an agenda", I don't know, I didn't look at the content of the edits, just the edits, but some here would disagree and say he did have a POV problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warring sock at Timothy Leary

IP 2605:A000:1200:C024:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B is edit warring at Timothy Leary to re-instate a description of Leary as a "philosopher" in the lead. See here for the eighth revert against five other users, and here for number nine. The IP is behaving this way despite talk page consensus, following a request for comment, that it is inappropriate for the article to label Leary as a "philosopher". See here. Based on behavior, the IP is clearly the now indefinitely blocked AcidRock67, evading his block. Requesting immediate block for IP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I know how strange this request is, but could any admin who sees this thread please ignore it and go to WP:RFPP and WP:AIV? Paring down those backlogs really needs to be a higher priority than posting here, at least right now. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The IP was blocked by Dennis Brown, but respectfully I think the admin made a mistake by saying, "If you come back making the changes against consensus again, you will be blocked again and the article protected, so either use the talk page (after the block expires) or go do something else (after the block expires)". The IP is AcidRock67 evading an indefinite block, and should not be editing at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I agree with you entirely but at this point, if this thread (and my accompanying whining, which I hope you don't think was aimed at you) has admins doing anything at all to deal with the backlogs, I'll take it. The oldest report at AIV still waiting for administrative response was added twenty-one effing hours ago and even a subpar block like that is a more valuable use of admins' time and effort than sitting around here, explaining to that one guy over and over that yes, Golan Heights falls under an Israel topic ban. And @Dennis Brown and EdJohnston: have a couple of pings in case I'm not already too far out of my lane. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know that it was Acid* but time will tell. I was assuming good faith as I didn't connect any dots and just made the block purely on behavior at this time, not a pattern over time. That takes a lot more time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle personal attacks

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

---

This edit by User:Born2cycle contains the edit summary "We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness" followed by the personal attack "it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this." and finishes with "So, I'm done with your goal-post-moving, straw man-creating, trolling over such a minor wording change. We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness."

I removed this personal attack, per WP:NPA and WP:TPO. User talk:JuanRiley decided to intervene, and re-post Born2cycle's personal attack. Twice. [26][27].

Born2Ccyle has been sanctioned before for this kind of thing, and is very likely going to post several hundred words here arguing the content dispute rather than addressing the personal attacks.

Please delete these personal attacks, and take necessary action to prevent them from posting any more personal attacks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I found nothing uncivil in the comments by User:Born2cycle--in the broad context of a heated discussion as is usual in WP. I found it more than a wee bit uncivil for User:Dennis Bratland to delete said remarks from the talk page. So I restored them. Only to have him (a) warn me of some dire repercussions on my talk page and (b) delete said comments by Born2cycle again. I have restored them again. That is all. Juan Riley (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're asking us to sanction someone for saying it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this? While it may not be the politest comment ever made, there's no earthly way that could be considered a personal attack. Having wasted part of my life actually reading the content dispute in question (it's over whether to describe queues of traffic as "lanes of traffic" or "rows of vehicles", to save anyone else the effort of reading it) I can't see anything remotely sanctionable; the two parties explaining why they consider their position correct and inviting others to comment in an RFC is how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Just reverted User:Dennis Bratland again for "redacting" User:Born2cycle talk page comments. Juan Riley (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Again User:Dennis Bratland has "redacted: another editors talk page comments. I have reverted him again. I am getting tired. Juan Riley (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Calling someone irrational, saying they have an "illness" i.e. calling them crazy (twice), and accusing them of trolling is not remotely a personal attack? And because I called a phrase (not an editor) "weird", that makes it OK?

As far as wasting anyone's time reading all this, I have tried to convince Born2cycle to make a greater effort to resolve this without dragging others into it. I agree it's too petty and too much to read, and I actually think it could have been resolved by local consensus, had the accusations of mental illness not been repeatedly posted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Then stop editing other's talk page comments and calm down and discuss. And please stop threatening me on my talk page. Juan Riley (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I redacted the worst, most direct personal attacks and defamatory accusations from Born2cycle's comment. I kept the gist of his arguments, hostile though they are. You keep putting them back. I posted the necessary warnings on your talk page about personal attacks, which include links you should read to help you understand talk page policy and the policy on personal attacks. Now you accuse me of "threatening" you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

IS there a limit on editing other's editor's talk page comments? Even if just the old three and out User:Dennis Bratland must now be suspect...yup he reinstated his "redaction" of User:Born2cycle's talk page comments. And he keeps threatening me on my talk page. Sigh. 20:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey User:Dennis Bratland..please do not paste your comments out of order. Tis confusing. It is not up to you to decide what you find offensive. Leave Born2Cycle's comments alone. I suspect that you are already guilty of 3rr..gotta be worse when the R's are of other editors comments on a talk page. And as I said...stop trying to threaten me on my talk page--in fact stay off my talk page. Please revert your last revert and restore Born2Cycle's comments. Juan Riley (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really any help out there is there. Would some self-important admin/factotum please talk reason to this man? Juan Riley (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Official factotum decision: you're all acting like idiots. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest the editors involved should read WP:TPO which among other relevant information states that on Talk pages, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Doh! Juan Riley (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
      • My Parthian shot: how uncivil of User:Floquenbeam to call us idiots. Should we redact his comment? Juan Riley (talk)
        • I hope you're joking. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) He didn't call you idiots, he said you were acting like idiots. Your failure to see the distinction isn't helping your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
          • To User:Callmemirela: Rhetorical? Hard to answer while riding on a horse backwards. (Pssst I would never do or condone such an action nor do I like a talk page freeze which leaves in place such an action.) Does User:Dennis Brown know sarcasm when he reads it? I have no case--I was upset that one editor was reverting/changing another editors comments on a talk page. I am an idiot..and User:Floquenbeam is a factotum. Juan Riley (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
            • • • • • • • • Psssst. Stop feeding the trolls. Juan Riley (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:LAME is one of my favorite pages. I'll be glad to prepare a new entry if you guys can provide just a little more material. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• WP:LAME hmmm a wee bit politically incorrect..why don't you start there? Juan Riley (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In the comment of mine which Dennis Bratland deleted I listed the reasons for why I concluded a rational discussion with him about that issue was impossible and requested an RFC. We can add this silliness to that list. Holey, moley! --В²C ☎ 22:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • Talk about a mountain out of a molehill eh? Juan Riley (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

So JuanRiley has rejected Floquenbeam' s advice to walk away, and so intends to go on fanning the flames when the page protection expires? Apparently. Rather than giving him enough rope to discover what the consequences of that might be, can an admin give Born2cycle sufficient access to rewrite his own post, without the attacks, focusing on content? Then everyone could move on. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Cyclists. Love 'em. Despite being nice people, they can suddenly get so aggressive. Is it the testosterone? Or the fact that a little carelessness can kill or mame them? I think so.

Born2cycle's last paragraph was a bit much. He deserves a stiff finger waved at him. Removal of the last paragraph was justified. Dennis Bratland removed too much. JuanRiley put too much back. They then edit warred. Block Dennis Bratland and JuanRiley for thirty minutes with a warning over the edit war. Unprotect the page so that Talk:Lane_splitting#RFC:_looking_for_outside_opinions_on_dispute_about_wording may proceed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• • We did not edit war....Bratland edited another editor's talk page comments--which you apparently feel was "a bit much". Well la di da. As I said above, stop feeding the idiot troll--which is apparently me. Juan Riley (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • PS User:SmokeyJoe: If you do not like my cavalier attitude towards your superficial take on the issue, just change my comments till you find them acceptable. Juan Riley (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• I, for one, object to the characterization of cyclists as compulsively aggressive, though I resemble that remark. One of the most heated discussions I've had on Wikipedia was in dispute with Born2cycle over a difference of interpretation of policy, and this supposed attack is, to put it mildly, well, mild. It's a long way off from a redactable personal attack, and I don't know what would possess one to revert war over it. Sometimes the best response to a borderline personal attack is to ignore it; I don't think this is even so serious as to call it borderline, though. Everyone should probably move on from this one. 🚲🚲*ring!* *ring!* Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Never said compulsively. Many cyclists are peace loving pacifists. But, a pack of cyclists, a car driver threatens one, it's more like a swarm of wasps than a pack of rabbits. Even if it was the one cyclist's fault. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• Maybe the lesson from you bitter experience with Born2cycle was not to allow incivility to escalate? I've had the same experience with him, and ignoring personal attacks didn't help at all. It got worse. I don't think all these put-downs (idiots, lame, silly, must be hormonal?!? Really? What's next? Estrogen?) are helpful. That's not how third parties step into a dispute and bring it to a resolution. Please: anyone who wants to "help" in that way? Don't. These taunts are not what anyone needs. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• My comment refers to the intensity of our debate, not the severity of the personal attack; actually as I recall it was B2C who first accused me of attacking him. The solution wasn't to edit war over it, he asked me to redact. I didn't, but that's a different thing. The point is we didn't let revert warring over a possible insult distract from the important issue we were debating. Whether or not B2C's comment was redactable, it's the edit war that entirely derailed the discussion and required it to be protected. Understand that that's as much your fault as it is Juan Riley's. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis is an editor with good intentions but this was clear edit warring on his part and he should know better. He did the same to me about a week back, again claiming he was right to cut talk page comments, and was warned at that time[[28]] While I'm sure Dennis is here to improve Wikipedia, he needs to understand that disagreement with others its not evidence that the others aren't here for the same reason. Springee (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Springee, you wouldn't tolerate for one second anyone saying you were mentally ill, or incapable of reason. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Nobody said you were mentally ill, Dennis. Certainly not me. I made a general statement about "illness" (that was intentionally vague and can mean just about anything) that admittedly suggested it might apply to the given context, but ultimately it's up to you and everyone else to decide whether it actually applied, and how. --В²C ☎ 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis' lesser redact was justifiable though not ideal. Better would have been to ask B2C to do it. He might have responded well to a polite question. Removing intended words without even a note is probably not helpful. I prefer disemvoweling, it leaves the intended message but the work required to read it eliminates the shock value. This is not to excuse the editwarring, but an acceptable version was protected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment - Juan Riley is a highly disruptive editor when he gets a bee in his bonnet and he does not seem to respond to patient explanations. I for one, as one of the editors who has had to deal with his disruption, believe Juan Riley should be placed under someone's eye until he learns how to communicate with others in a more civil manner. (N0n3up (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC))

Is it possible to officially inform Dennis that the appropriate reaction to a perceived personal attack is to ask the alleged attacker to refrain from doing so, rather than editing someone else's comments? I haven't verified but apparently he's done this before and needs to know doing so is indicative of mental illness. Just kidding, Dennis! But seriously, editing others' comments should be a last resort, not the first action. --В²C ☎ 16:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about this discussion, but it worries me immensely to see that editing another's comments is being put forward as a legitimate behaviour. It is not. Please see WP:TPO. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• You (B2C) directly stated another editor was ill - either mentally or otherwise - and your comments above where you defend it as saying you made it 'intentionally vague' certainly bear out that you know exactly what you were doing. It was a clear personal attack aimed at another editor and subject to removed under WP:NPA which is policy. DrChrissy, WP:TPO is a guideline for best practice. It is not wikipedia policy. Removing blatant personal attacks is allowed by policy. Please read the actual policies before commenting in future. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, and you are correct. For those interested WP:No personal attacks (a policy page), states Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I knew exactly what I was writing. There was no attribution to anyone in particular in the wording in question. Don't believe me? Here it is again: "We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness"[29]. It's an intentionally general statement, not an attack on any one, much less on any particular person. At any rate, at most the removal of that alleged "attack" was arguably defensible; not the removal of the entire comment. --В²C ☎ 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if that comment was directed at me, but if it was, please save your words; I have absolutely no intention of taking "sides" in this thread. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess my repeating "see WP:NPA, WP:TPO" wasn't clear enough. I should have directly quoted the policy saying any editor may remove derogatory comments.

Born2cycle is sitting here baldly lying, denying obvious facts. I can't just say that, unfortunately. I have to prove it. I have to break it down, point by point. I wish I didn't. But what other option is there? So here it is. Of course, I'll be criticized for posting a wall of text. What else can I do? I'd like someone to tell me.

What is vague about Born2cycle's words "We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness... it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this... We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness." What other kind of illness can this be except mental? What other kind of illness is "fed" by continuing a discussion with me? When you say a person cannot have a rational discussion, you are referring to their mental state. Any possible ambiguity about which kind of illness is meant is given context by "it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you". The carefully-chosen reference to illness is made twice.

Born2cycle has confirmed twice his words are deliberate. The denial "Nobody said you were mentally ill, Dennis" is contradicted by the contents of the personal attack. The thesis of the entire post is "Since you cannot be reasoned with, an RfC is needed to involve others who are not you". That is not a "general statement", it doesn't refer to "anyone". Born2cycle was directing his words at nobody but me. Discussion with Dennis would "feed his illness".

What of the rest of the post, the parts where he is not calling me mentally ill or irrational? The entire post consists of characterizations of my behavior, a litany of accusations that I am erratic, contradictory, inconsistent, and a fabulist. No other editor is mentioned. Every single word is about me.

This denial, "Nobody said you were mentally ill, Dennis. Certainly not me. I made a general statement about 'illness'" is a blatant lie. "Gaslighting" is a fancy word for telling lies to deny your own behavior when caught red handed. "There was no attribution to anyone in particular in the wording in question."?! "Well, who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is why I asked for an RFC. But let me try this. First, the "it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this" statement is separated from the "We need another set of eyes here, not more feeding of anyone's illness" by nine paragraphs of explanation. Second, what if I had said, "We need another set of eyes here, not more eating of cookies". Would you have thought I was accusing you in particular of eating cookies? Anyway, here's some reading that might be of use[30] (not necessarily to anyone in particular). --В²C ☎ 20:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by User:XPanettaa

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

---

Edits have resumed by User:86.84.247.233, which is the IP of User:XPanettaa. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XPanettaa. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Norden1990 - personal attacks, civility

Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Personal attack: "your contributions to the wiki project with unsourced claims and chauvinist-inspired fringe theories" diff
• Another one: "I understand your goal: you intends to hide the Hungarian past of the territory in order to delete contemporary Hungarian and Latin names. But I warn you, chauvinist editors had very short career here before you too" diff
• Insulting other nationalities: (declaring that my mother tongue did not exist in the past and was invented in the 19th century) "not mentioning the language (invented by Stúr)" diff
• False accusation (+ removal of the sourced text): "do not threat fellow editors with your anti-Hungarian remarks" diff Ditinili (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wand to second this. This users contributions have a pattern of nationalism and bigotry. Nothing inherently wrong with Hungarian patriotism, but he shouldn't bring it to Wikipedia. Amin (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Added in userlinks. Blackmane (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to recuse myself as an admin due to prior interactions, but I will bring to interested editors attention Norden1990's similar contributions at this TFA request, where they baselessly claimed "anti-Hungarian POV". It is a bit of a pattern, indicating Norden1990 may be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as they relate to Hungary. Some sort of discouragement may be appropriate on the basis of a long-term trend rather than just the mild and recent incivilities mentioned here. This stuff is insidious and erodes good faith over time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The "attacks" quoted above seem very weak, particularly when placed in their original context. (They're part of much longer comments that correctly invoke Wikipedia policies and guidelines to criticize the OP's editing.) If there's a larger pattern of Norden1990's "nationalism and bigotry", and if it's any different than the nationalism-based counteraccusations against him presented here, then please provide more and better examples. Otherwise, I don't think there's need for any action here, other than to remind all involved parties to keep cool heads. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that it's OK to call other users "anti-Hungarian", chauvinists, etc, whenever they do not agree with somebody. Also, statements like "language XYZ was invented in the 19th century" seem to be closer to far-right extremism than to WP standards (for me personally, it is highly offensive).

"correctly invoke Wikipedia policies and guidelines" means in this case that the editor repeatedly removes properly sourced text diff, declaring that he allegedly read the publication and it does not contain such information diff what is obviously not true and it was also proven here. Also, none alleged "anti-Hungarian remarks" were documented. Ditinili (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Lists of songs

Wondering what peoples thoughts are on these

• WWE: Undertaker - From the Vault
• WWE Tough Enough: The Music

I have deleted a few as they are unreferenced and copied from elsewhere without attribution.

User:Fmm134 is creating a bunch of them but they do not look like encyclopedic articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User is a newbie who needs to stop creating new articles. All of the new articles need to be deleted, and the user needs a topic ban on new articles unless he goes through WP:AfC. He has also made several unexplained disruptive mass POV deletions at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016: [31]. Someone needs to warn him and keep an eye on him. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I warned him but they continue. Have removed their editing privileges until they agree to stop. Will delete all the page tomorrow unless anyone objects. Not sure they would be copyright issues or not? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot III not working properly at all

Lowercase sigmabot III isn't working properly at all. The archiving here at WP:ANI has been set to 72-hours-old for years now, but there are currently threads that have gone 5, 6, and 7 days without responses or archiving. I've seen countless other article-talk pages over the past several months with threads well past that page's "expiration" that Lowercase sigmabot III has failed to archive. It appears we need a replacement for this bot as it is failing. ANI in particular needs a working bot that archives stale threads promptly.

The bot's creator, Σ, hasn't edited in 6 weeks. Someone may need to email him.

PS: I'm posting this in a couple of places so that it is seen by those who can help. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

BelAirRuse – Harassment

• BelAirRuse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After being warned for harassing comments made, the user in question continued the harassment. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 06:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• BelAirRuse is already blocked for the next three days for edit-warring. There's not much point in doing anything else. His posts are on his own talk page (where editors have a freer rein), and you should not be removing them; see WP:TPO. Leave his talk page alone except for notices which are absolutely required, such as for edit-warring, and take his talk page off your watch list. That should solve your problem. I recommend that this thread be closed. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  WP:TPO is a guideline. WP:NPA is policy. Blatant personal attacks can be removed *anywhere*. TPO does not give you permission to call other editors cocksuckers and if you think it does, you need to go and read WP:NPA some more. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm considering extending their block to indefinite. Such personal attacks are not okay, whether done on one's own talk page or not. Not to mention the user did this after being blocked twice in three days for edit warring. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't issue indefinite blocks for going off on one's own talkpage (especially after being blocked, when users generally blow off a lot of steam on their own talk page). Unless there is some egregious long-term pattern of behavior outside of his own talkpage, this thread is a non-starter. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but combined with the previous remarks of a similar nature and the two edit warring blocks in three days one could make a case for extending to indef either under WP:NOTHERE. Regardless, you are right that users often sound off after being blocked, so I have used a liberal dose of AGF and just gave them a personal attack warning. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible BLP violation

User being reported: Special:Contributions/72.200.116.34

Relevant thread: Talk:Jessica Drake#Real name

User previously attempted to include what they claimed to be the subject's real name into the article which was reverted: diff.

The editor persists in revealing the subject's name and has now posted it to the Talk page, along with the suggestion that they might post the subject's credit report obtained through a "friend". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• The edit to the article was handled and redacted by Drmies yesterday (one edit isn't "persisting"). Since he is an admin, and involved in the talk-page thread, he is perfectly capable of removing it from the talk page if he deems it problematic there. In the future such issues should be reported at WP:BLPN rather than ANI. Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Shueisha was moved to "Islamic state in Japan"

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

---

The page Shueisha was moved to "Islamic State in Japan" and subsequently nominated for deletion by The Nightingale Sang the Words of Love (talk · contribs). Can a friendly admin please restore order and move the page back again? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

SlitherioFan2016 Socking/edit-warring/using misleading edit summaries

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

---

• SlitherioFan2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Motion picture rating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SlitherioFan2016 is a SPA more or less whose activity is confined to rating articles such as Motion picture rating system, Television content rating systems, Video game rating system and Mobile software content rating system . He has undertaken numerous changes without consensus to the color schemes used by the tables at these articles, which arguably offer less contrast. These changes are now the subject of an RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users? but SlitherioFan2016 persists in making alterations while the RFC is ongoing and generally thwarting the process.

These are his changs to the color scheme since just the RFC started:

• October 9: [32], reverted by Robevans123
• October 10: [33] (with the plea that "Maybe editing of the color code could be postponed till after the survey?", although he obviously means this to apply to everyone but himself)
• October 16: [34] (changes the black text on orange scheme to a low contrast white text on orange scheme. Reverted by Eyesnore.
• October 23: [35] (radical new color scheme not proposed at all at the RFC, but helpfully suggests "You may comment on my talk page telling me what you think of this "proposed" color scheme.") Reverted by me.
• October 23: [36] (white on orange again) and [37] (new color scheme), reverted by Pppery and me.
• October 24: [38] (states "Restored descriptive notes but kept existing color scheme"). His edit summary is categorically UNTRUE. He undertook substantial changes to the color scheme by reintroducing the white text on orange background. Reverted by me once again, and I explain at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#Orange.2Fwhite_combo why white text on an orange background is a poor idea.

Apart from the constant disruption there is also an ongoing sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SlitherioFan2016. SlitherioFan has been undertaking alterations at all articles while logged out and denies it was him (even though in some cases he uses the same edit summaries), and then contributing to discussions under different IP numbers to "agree" with himself and thereby creating the impression there is mass support for his changes. I am not going to outline the whole case here but you can see at the case submission there is a lot of compelling evidence. Betty Logan (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I probably would have reverted his second change of color if I hadn't believed his edit summary. Pppery 19:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the message posted on my talk page saying I will make no further disruptive edits to content ratings articles for the next four weeks. Also I would like to request temporary 30/500 protection just for motion picture rating system. Would that be okay? Furthermore, I will try to make my edit summaries as tru as possible and will avoid misleading edit summaries. And, as with my second color alteration and the "summary plea" applies to everyone and that includes myself. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

SlitherioFan2016, this is not the deal I proposed on your talk page. You should make *no edits at all* at Motion picture rating systems for the next four weeks. Are you ready to agree to that? EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes I am. That's why I want to request Extemded confirmed (30/500) page protection. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

SlitherioFan2016, thanks for your agreement not to edit the Motion picture rating systems for four weeks. We'll hold you to it. On 23 October I had already applied semiprotection to Motion picture rating systems. One requirement for extended confirmed protection is that it should be used "In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective." It is not yet evident to me that this increased level of protection is needed. The main problem that seemed to be annoying people was the constant changes to the article's color scheme while an RfC was still in progress. I trust this will not continue. Is there anything more to be addressed here? EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Muttahida Qaumi Movement

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

---

Rather than indulging in discussion process, User:Rameezraja001 keep on edit warring and continuously renaming the mentioned page. --Saqib (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Both of you are edit warring. Don't edit war even if you think you are right. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've left a 3RR warning (Rameezraja001) & (Saqib) for both users. It looks like both have already reached WP:3RR, and gone right past it. It looks like both Saqib and Rameezraja001 are displaying a case of Ownership --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked 60 hours. At this point, it isn't even about number of reverts, what they are doing with moves and editing over each other and reverting, it is all disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Creepy, obscene and nonsensical edit summaries

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

---

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

I first noticed this editor's edit summaries at 17th Satellite Awards, where a now-redacted edit summary read "pro licks dogs' balls".

On Oct. 22nd, I cautioned this editor here, and received a reply from that editor here stating "Of course. Not a problem. I will ease it back a notch." Unfortunately, the edit summary accompanying the message read "here is a Reddi-whipped, gooey chocolate sauced, crumbly chocolate crusted, pudding mix with oodles of vodka-laced icecream".

I also here contacted administrator User:Bbb23 to ask if they would redact the offensive edit summaries from the article, per WP:CRD #2, which addresses edit summaries that are "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value".

Since then, a sample of User:FeatherPlumas edit summaries include:

• [39] - "sex with low-brow freshly baked gingerbread dolls in the privacy of your own kitchen is more about calmly maintaining the status quo and not really extolling rebellion, outrage or anarchy".
• [40] - "spelling- Tertullian's idea is I believe that the idea is right b/c its so totally fucked up it couldnt just be a fucked up brain fart in the brain of a fart, so in a fucked way I kinda know its false but I will go with using it as true".
• [41] - "clean up wikipedia delay and jump resulting in inadvertent error, which it would apparently be VULGAR to call dog poop on the lawn but which metaphorically is the white encrusted waste matter crisscrossing the terrain".
• [42] - "reorgz: hv had my finger in this wet hole for long enuf today I will now bugger off and come back after a while (tomorrow?) to hv another go at twerking it".

I'm not trying to be prudish, but leaving vulgar, non-nonsensical messages in public places isn't cool, and it certainly doesn't benefit the project. As well, young people edit Wikipedia, as do schools (Wikipedia:Training/For students). This sort of creepiness does not send a positive message. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You're not being prudish. Even without the profanity or erotic context, the whole point of an edit summary is to help users identify what change was made, right? The second link about "brain farts" was just a diff of him correcting a typo in the word "For"; there's no way to tell that from reading the summary though. Those edit summaries would be useless even if they weren't potentially offensive to readers and I think that it is important to caution this user so that they understand that edit summaries aren't just for random ramblings. My concern is that if you just chide him for the bad language he will think that it is OK to write random gibberish instead. Alicb (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, at the very beginning of that edit summary it explains concisely what they are doing. They should have stopped there. Generally, these are pointless edit summaries in which the user is being self-indulgent and immature by saying god knows what for god knows what reason. I've posted a warning to the user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's not spend any time on this. The problem is I am utterly bored here and intellectually understimulated, and have become more than a bit unruly. I think it's time to let you all stay here unmolested as I take a walk outside. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You should request a block of yourself, per WP:NOTHERE, if you can't take a break without coming back to stir the pot. Borderline behavior that you know will provoke a reaction, which then leads to others having to waste their time discussing whether your behavior is just this side of the line, or just on that side of the line, is called trolling. It's a deliberate distraction that serves to express your boredom; it does not serve the goal of building an encyclopedia. Don't put the burden on everyone else to stop wasting time on this, when it's entirely in your power to put a stop to it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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 [43]). 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. ([44] 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)

Legal Threats by user Janthana

I recently listed some articles for deletion which were being persistently vandalized by, among others, User:Janthana. After checking their history they appear to be engaged in persistent edit warring with various IPs/socks. Regardless of the merit of these edits, the user has continuously accused others of "stalking" and has engaged in persistent personal attacks. However, one edit in particular, Special:Diff/745569312 includes what appears to be a legal threat. I'm not sure if this falls under WP:NLT guidelines but it seems worth pointing out given the user's generally hostile nature. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmysquirrelpants (talk • contribs) 19:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Question @Jimmysquirrelpants:: Where did you ask this user what they meant about the statement in that diff? What "emergency" action are you wanting users to take with respect to Janthana? Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't address it because I was not the intended recipient. The action I am seeking is what is appropriate per the WP:NLT guidelines, I just noticed it while browsing the user's history. If this is not the appropriate forum I apologize. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of revisions from that diff which were made by some kind of troll. The diff quoted seems like not much to worry about in itself, but perhaps it's the tip of an iceberg. It seems Janthana has been swatting trolls for some time. It's probably worth asking if they are getting over-involved and want to tone it down a bit. I also see a recent related block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I have. And the legal threat is not from me, I couldn't be bothered with it, plus it's not allowed here. But it might come from outside. Let me be absolutely clear. For the last 6 months the following profiles and IPs, who I am absolutely convinced are the same person, have been obsessively vandalizing, stalking, slandering and disrupting anything regarding article Douglas R. Docker. Following this, the articles has been semi-protected and has gone quiet since. However, Mr SquarePants and/or his aliases have since then have been plugging libelous, slandering, false, unreferenced and offensive edits anywhere, with a particular love for connecting Douglas R. Docker and his father with Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad with lovely rants such as "the butcher of Saddam" and the like. We're talking about a rock musician here. This is very serious and has created VERY SERIOUS damage to his image and livelihood. I wrote to him. He took action. That's why most secondary IPs have been blocked or gone quiet. But Mr SpongeBob here keeps trolling at a low level to keep things interesting. Obviously very disturbed person with not much to hang on the Xmas tree this year. So yes, I have been troll whacking, and all attempts to get me banned or blocked or articles where I got involved deleted have failed. I do know that there are several admins looking into this and if that's not enough you can bet I will get the Foundation involved directly. I've been using a humorous tone mostly, but this is very serious stuff. Just to be perfectly clear, these are the profiles and IPs that have been vandalizing the most, often using a "good cop/bad cop" strategy to look legit and then blast away elsewhere. Jimmysquirrelpants, AFJP FAN 420 (got blocked for adding false references to justify his slander), Mystic Technocrat who acts as the good cop, but systematically interacts almost exclusively on the same articles as the others, and then professional trolls 161.113.11.16, 161.113.20.135 who have been good boys for a while, waiting for the article to be unprotected, and a slew of others which you can discover in the article history page. most of these have been blocked, but a few are returning like bad roaches. SO yes, it is the tip of an iceberg, you're just looking at the wrong end of it. Janthana (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And this is exactly why you're supposed to discuss issues with users prior to jumping immediately to ANI. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but with all due respect a neurotic troll has little to discuss, his goal being to disrupt at all costs. I'm not the one opening ANIs all over the place, that said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janthana (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to Janthana for the summary. If we could politely ask Janthana to just appear a little less excited in their edit summaries, as this is precisely what trolls feed off. I am sure admins will do what they can to help out. Unfortunately the diff quoted is probably one of the less forseeable edits, but I've watchlisted the article and a couple of others in case they reappear in the same place. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to add a tip: Janthana, the only time you will ever see me make edits without summaries is when dealing with trolls. I simply revert, blank summary. If it needs revdel, email an active admin. If I needed (pre admin) to file at AIV, keep it simple. If it needs oversight, use the link on their page. Like zzuuzz said, trolls feed on reaction. If you want to starve them out, give them no reaction, which means no satisfaction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Point well taken and I agree completely. Sometimes when this stuff has gone on for months it's hard to keep it serious though. Thanks to all for the support and tips. Hopefully things are going to quiet down for a while now and i can get back to constructive editing instead of policing.Janthana (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Many unsourced, unexplained data changes

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

---

Can someone nuke the 'tribs of JSOhm, the're all unsourced and unexplained baseball record changes, or I can continue to do it manually. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked and nuked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Thank you, but there are still many live 'tribs left, maybe for some unknown reason to me though. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I used the nuke tool, and filled up my watchlist so bad I had to manually trim it. Have they not been reverted? If not, it may require manually going through. If someone edited after them, then yes, it would require a manual edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: No problem, I'll go through them, it's a boring day :P. Thanx for what you do - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I just checked the first 100, they are all reverted. Some by you, some by me. They will still show up as contribs of course. I just punch up the hist for each article in a new tab, and use CNTL-F4 a lot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll get-r-done - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Stealth offsite canvassing

I found the page on canvassing to not be clear on how to deal with stealth (offsite) canvassing. See the discussion here. Someone posted on the Wikileaks Reddit asking for users to change the Wikileaks article to make it more favorable to their POV, and a number of users did just that. What action should I take? -- Rei (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Drawing too much attention to it just feeds the trolls, which is what they are searching for. Usually, a note at WP:AN is best, since what you really want is to bring it to the attention of administrators, not necessarily everyone. ANI is ok, just not optimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Short-term page protection is probably the way to go here; since you can't positively identify the actor making the request (who may very well be an inexperienced and/or IP editor themselves), you can't combat this with sanctions, but most of the recruits are likely to be IP's (or new accounts with minimal number of edits), meaning that page protection, combined with some basic effort at examining recent involvement on the article for signs of meat puppetry, should stymy the efforts of the offsite canvasing/POV pushing. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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.[45] 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".[46] 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.[47] 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".[48] 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

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)

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)

User:JJMC89 targeting an article for a week before AFDing it

User:JJMC89 has been hampering progress I've been trying to make at the article Demetrios Alexatos for a week. Putting it up for AFD is one thing, an honest action users take all the time. This goes further, includes canvassing and borders on Wikihounding (normally that applies to more than one article, but in this case "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." has certainly been the case. [49] [50] [51] removing dates of birth and death [52] I've caught User:JJMC89 twice canvassing a single user-per Wikipedia:Canvassing "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." [53] [54]

I have twice asked this user for an explanation of their motives and intent as regards this article, as they block or undo any improvement to it. [55] [56]

From the start, there was no assumption of good faith, no sense of "you know what, it does sound like maybe there is some notability back there somewhere, I can try to help, or wait and see if this can be improved", and the timing of the AFD a mere week after the article's creation, I submit this plus the canvassing all smacks of foul play.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo - I understand that you're a bit frustrated, but let me give you my thoughts when looking at the diffs you provided. In regards to 1, 2, and 3 - I believe that he meant, in his edit summaries, that your edits don't "add value" because most of the lines in the info box are blank. Regarding the "canvassing" - he only asked one user, who nominated article for its previous AFD, for input 1, 2. This is not canvassing. I agree that infoboxes can contain blank information, and that he might have jumped the gun for removing those edits repeatedly... but I think you're taking this a little too over the top, here... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I appreciate your weighing in on this, but I think you are too lightly dismissive of this, and I feel patronized. If it is okay, I'd like another admin to weigh in. If they agree with you, I'm happywilling to let it drop, but as it stands the action-with-lack-of-interaction this last week has left one of the bitterest tastes in my mouth in 11 years here. We wonder why Wikipedia is not growing like gangbusters as it once was-experiences like this are why. I'm not some new editor writing about their best friend at school and I think this has been badly mishandled.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You first sourced biographical info to a blog, and have now sourced them to '2 guys in greece'. You have read WP:V right? Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of cooperation by User:Xboxmanwar

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

On Oct. 21st, User:Xboxmanwar performed a non-admin closure of an AfD here on the article Big Baby D.R.A.M.

I cautioned User:Xboxmanwar about doing that here, because they were a major editor to the article, and had advocated keeping the article during the AfD discussion. The editor did not revert their AfD close.

User:Lemongirl942 made two attempts to encourage User:Xboxmanwar to revert their non-admin close of the article, here and here.

User:Xboxmanwar responded here, saying "That AfD was already destined to be kept, so why waste more time to relist, its already been done, and a whole bunch of people voted for it to be kept, which it will."

User:John from Idegon explained here: "Because it is a behavioral policy. Behavioral policies are not subject to WP:IAR. Every social interaction in the world has rules, and Wikipedia is no exception. So are you refusing to comply with the rules?"

User:Xboxmanwar's non-admin close of Big Baby D.R.A.M. has still not been reverted. Perhaps an administrator could discuss with User:Xboxmanwar the importance of cooperating with other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Magnolia677 also has issues with cooperating with other editors yourself, they aren't innocent as they appear. Also, perhaps the administrator that could be involved in this issue can let the issue on Big Baby D.R.A.M. slide because again, it was already full of keeps, so the article already stays. Xboxmanwar (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not really that simple, I'm afraid. Discussions on this project are not decided by the number of !votes alone, so an evaluation of local consensus of discussion, as interpreted within the constraints of broader community consensus, is almost never performed by one of the same parties who advocated for one of the positions, because such decisions are quite susceptible to confirmation bias. This is actually a rather perfect example of why we do not allow that: while it's true that there is a 10:2 weight in favour of a keep in that AfD, I've looked at every !vote, and it's a veritable smorgasbord of arguments best avoided in deletion reviews; seriously, I don't think one of them is predicated in an actual viable policy rationale or an accurate reading of WP:NALBUMS. Looking at the article, 4 of 6 of the sources utilized are links to an itunes listing (clearly not a reliable source for anything) and the other two are blurbs in trade magazines, though one has the benefit of being a Rolling Stone entry.

Mind you, I'm not staking out a position on whether this topic is notable or not, with any degree of certainty; since the album is now released, there may very well be more substantial coverage out there. What I am saying is that this was not an open and shut case by any means, and it underscores the reasons why we don't want involved parties making the "obvious" call on content disputes to which they were a party, no matter how confident they are on the basis of the number of !votes supporting the approach they favour. I'd suggest that the best thing to do here is to revert the close and let a neutral party come to their own conclusions in due course; in the meantime, if the article has in fact begun to receive expanded coverage in the media (as one party to the AfD asserted, but did not demonstrate), then those sources should be added to the article, as this would lend actual policy support to the !keep determination, which is more compelling than any number of "it's obvious, isn't it?" style !votes. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits by 70.75.13.251

Not sure what these edits are about, but they are weird and may contain privacy violations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's an atypical case, but WP:EMERGENCY would seem to apply here, since there is a suggestion of violence. It's very likely to be trolling, but our policy is "better safe than sorry" where this type of thing is concerned. Let us know if/when you drop a line to the WMF, so we can know that aspect has been attended to--or if you don't wish to send the email, let us know that as well, so someone else can. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I've sent an email to WP:EMERGENCY.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Just a note that we're looking into this from our side (any block etc that would normally be done can go ahead and be done however). Jalexander--WMF 06:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The CSI, MI5, and Stasi stuff certainly suggests trolling; it's interesting, however, that they mention both Calvary and a (real) address in Plymouth, Devon? _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I googled some of the names mentioned, with some bizarre results. I'd say mental illness is more likely a factor here than intentional trolling. In any case, needs oversight. -- œ^™ 07:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This looks a good deal like a certain (alleged) netkook from Usenet days, who appears to also now have a twitter presence. Anmccaff (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that mental health issues are just as likely as concerted trolling; without going into detail, there are tell-tale markers in both the form and content of the messages. That said, our speculation ought to end here; the WMF has the relevant information and they are the only ones empowered to pursue this further--anything further on our part will only serve to possibly prolong the policy violations and undermine the effort of the oversighter. I'm not sure who redacted the edits/summaries, but it's worth noting that, thanks to SineBot, the edit on Ian's page remains there still, and the most recent version ought to be scrubbed, since it contains all of the (possibly real) private info of the the other edits, combined into one. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sinebot's helpful edit has been revdel'd and oversight of that edit requested. Nthep (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Oneshotofwhiskey and Dinesh D'Souza

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 ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]), 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)

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)

Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles

The automobile project has been having a discussion about whether vehicles used in notorious crimes (the crime having its own article) shoould also have the crime mentioned in the vehicle article. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Propose: Add notoriety statement to Ford F-650 article for use in 1995 for Oklahoma City Bombing Suggestion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles# Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles.

The summary of the two sides is:

• Con: WP:TRIVIA advises that the crime should not be mentioned in the vehicle article unless it had a material affect on the design, sales or reputation of the vehicle.
• Pro: The vehicle was an important part of the crime, therefore the crime deserves to be mentioned in the vehicle article.

So far, the discussion has disagreed about whether WP:TRIVIA has any validity at all, what constitutes consensus, how much time is required for consensus to be reached (the discussion has been going for a couple of months) and whether "no consensus" means the articles should be reverted. To my knowledge, nobody on either side has been persuaded by any arguments made by the other side. Some of the principle proponents have been brought before the administrators during the discussion for uncivil behaviour.

I am requesting an administrator to advise us on the following:

• Whether WP:TRIVIA is a valid convention for us on the automobile project?
• If WP:TRIVIA is not valid then should a less restrictive version be used instead?
• Have we reach a "no consensus" status or should we continue the discussion?
• If we have reached a "no consensus" state then should we revert the 2 example articles under discussion to their previous state (one of which had the crime mentioned and one which did not)?

Thank you.  Stepho  talk  11:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs:

• No.
• Yes.
• I don't know.
• Probably.

That said, this looks like a content dispute. "Some of the principle proponents have been brought before the administrators during the discussion for uncivil behaviour" -- can you name names? You didn't notify anyone of this ANI thread. This page is for reporting incidents of problematic user behaviour, and your not naming anyone in particular looks like a way to get around the requirement to notify the subject. I say looks like, because this makes it look like a good-faith mistake. if you want to "[ask] for an administrator to step in [and close the discussion with a consensus statement]", you should post on WP:AN.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: Re-pinging you since I suspect that my forgetting to sign my above post (at first) might have negated my ping. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Stepho-wrs: IMO the best route to answering this question is a formal RfC, since admins are just editors with mops. We have good insight into policies on reliable sources, spamming, user conduct etc., but our views on what constitutes trivia in this kind of case are of no especial merit. Aside: it's an interesting question, a sort of parity of significance. If we mention X in article Y, does that mean we should mention Y in article X? My main experience of this has been in articles where the mainstream view is included in the article on some bit of batshit craziness, but the crazy view is excluded from the mainstream article. That's a different kind of parity. Admins will of course be happy to review the RFC discussion and close it for you at the end, though I suspect the result is likely to be "it depends", and proceed on a case by case basis. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• What Guy said. An RFC is the solution, this is a content issue, not an administrative one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Tony1

It is with reluctance that I turn to this noticeboard, but I fear I have a situation that I am unable to handle on my own. After a content dispute that became vituperative, this editor has taken to following me about the Wikipedia, and tagging or reverting my edits.

The incident began when I challenged a deletion of Tony's at Johannes Brahms[65]. I quoted a number of sources on the talk page, and asked if he had sources supporting his view. After several days with no reply, I restored the deleted sentence. Tony immediately redeleted the sentence, and replied on the talk page. Although he did not provide any sources to support his position, it was clear from his reply that he took umbrage at my post Talk:Johannes Brahms#Undue emphasis. Seeing that further discussion was not going to be productive, I started an RFC to get other editors' opinions Talk:Johannes Brahms#RFC: Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include counterpoint as a key element in his compositional style?.

Rather than participate in the RFC, Tony chose to attack it as illegitimate ("The thread above presents an RFC that is not in accordance with WP:RFC. It should be disregarded or relaunched properly, according to the guideline"). He also declared his intention to stalk me on other pages I edited ("It looks as though I'll have to sort out what you've been doing to music articles more widely.") Since then, with a thoroughness that would be admirable in any other context, he has attached a {{fact}} tag on every sentence that I have edited that was not a direct quote. For example, here

I have tried to treat these tags by assuming good faith, and adding citations, even when it seemed slightly absurd. For example, he put a {{fact}} tag on a rhetorical question (in Grosse Fuge#Performance: "The first of these (issues) is: in what context to play the fugue? As the finale of Opus 130, as it was originally written, or as a separate piece?"). What kind of documentation did he expect for a question? Never mind. After adding citations in all the places he put a tag (adding additional sources to the ones already cited), in his most recent edit he deleted all the additional sources I had added, and restored the tags. So I am now at a loss on how to proceed.

I ask you here for the following assistance:

• that an uninvolved administrator read the talk page of Johannes Brahms and determine if the RFC is legitimate or not.

• that an uninvolved administrator review the {{fact}} tags that Tony1 has added to Johannes Brahms and to Grosse Fuge, and, if the administrator deems them improper, remove them (of course, if the administrator feels the tags are justified, I will gladly supply additional documentation).

• ask Tony to refrain from marking up or editing edits that I make.

Thank you, Ravpapa (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In Grosse Fuge, for example, your edits gave very substantial weight to the opinions of Robert S Kahn (an author of four books, saith Google, in minor presses, of which only two are on musical subjects). I cannot find any indication that his views are considered sufficiently authoritative to justify this focus, and I find the tags and reverts to be justified. I suggest you seek consensus on article talk pages before making edits of this kind. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Tony1

I'd never had contact with the editor. I occasionally put my cases strongly on WP, and here that arose from a concern that non-expert readers might draw the wrong conclusions from a technical proposition—I did even suggest at one point the addition of an epithet ("motivic counterpoint") to that end, which is used in more recent publications. But ... no engagement aside from an outraged one above the RFC. The instant combativeness and aggressiveness is disappointing. I've added nothing to the Brahms article but for fact-tags to a stream of propositions; these he had inserted unsourced (thus as WP's narrative) just two hours after starting a highly personalised RFC on exactly the same matter—not only unreferenced, but to me of insufficient logical or causal connection with the adjacent quotes. These were also post hoc changes that would appear to justify his desired outcome in the RFC. My fact tags there were a sign that I didn't want an edit war.

I'd have expected to engage more on the talkpage thread to resolve the original matter, rather than a sudden escalation to an RFC (and now here). The RFC is out of line with WP:RFC's requirements of neutrality and brevity, and I note that other avenues should be tried before such a strategy. I was then concerned that his addition of such strong, opinionated, unreferenced propositions at Brahms might be a broader pattern, and my first sampling from his contribs list yielded examples in Grosse Fuge. In a piece of reverse engineering, probably prompted by my adding fact tags there as well, he has hunted down references at Grosse Fuge that I've admittedly not checked for accuracy or reliability. But the concern is that performance-related opinions, even if published, might be better sequestered in a reading list at the bottom (even footnotes would have been better); this I suggested in my revert edit-summary.

The Brahms RFC, incidentally, announces in strong terms Ravpapa's credentials as a performer; that's admirable, and I'm sure he's skilled and clever at it; but it doesn't justify the recent insertion of opinions or propositions in at least two articles without reference—and when later referenced that might present issues of balance and encyclopedic tone. I find the anger a bit frightening. The insertions and escalations might be abnormal for the editor, whom I give the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather get on with him, since he no doubt shares much with me. Why can't it be so? Tony (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (plus others) fails to see they are using incorrect evidence to use against me, resulting in bullying

Following on from User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#Phew... and my own talk page, I had (in bad faith, admittedly) closed or relisted some AfDs. Having some good advice from sarahj2107, Fortuna along with Lourdes and Izno, started bickering at me on my user page after I (again, with bad faith) accused them as trolls on RFPP, to which I apologised, [66] to which Fortuna, I believe, has not either seen, nor accepted. Fortuna then took the discussion to their user page, along with the latter two left after I put through a statement, and assisted Izno after I recnsidered his AfD to which I relisted and since closed and left it at that. Fortuna then refused to let it die and started using false evidence against me, using an old talkpage under an old pseudonym I was using, User talk: Nordic Dragon, to which I moved to get speedied after it contained personal data, since deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (pinging for his input). I kindly asked Fortuna to reassess what he had done and he refuses to either look at the evidence that I provided or he blatantly refuses to stand down out of spite, now calling me a troll. [67] Now as matter of course, I have referred it to ANI for administrator assistance. Since then, another user has got involved, Light2021, who reverts my NAC on an AfD which I thought was correct. I require admin assistance on this too. Nordic Nightfury 14:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I won't speak to the AFD issue, but it appears you're asking Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to be sanctioned/lectured for calling you a troll after you called him a troll, in what you admit was bad faith. The answer is, grow up and stop wasting other people's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)