Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trugster (talk | contribs) at 16:04, 31 October 2016 (→‎Possible legal threat: apology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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 [1]). 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. ([2] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    I would like to point out that since accusing me and cast aspersions, Pikipaki2222 has made zero other edits. Despite making multiple accusations in this thread, they have present zero evidence that I have harassed or threatened them. I would like an admin to consider their actions.--Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to ask the admin to be patient as I have a job and a life, and as newbie here it takes time for me to gather all the relevant guidelines, policies and present them in the right form (of which many time was pointed out harshly by Zackmann08. As well it takes time to go through all the logs and collect Zackmann08's all disruptive and abusing edits, comments. I am being patient of Zackmann08's abuses since 3 month, I believe couple of more days, me to defend my case won't hurt anybody.Pikipaki2222 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pikipaki2222: I say this as, I believe, a neutral party here (without having any background with either participant, as far as I know, and complete unfamiliarity with the subject): as frustrating as I know the experience probably is, if your priority is the article, your time is much better spent gathering sources and arguing along they constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" (i.e. notability). I haven't had an exhaustive look at all of Zackman's comments, but from what I can tell he acknowledges, more or less, where he was wrong and admin intervention in a scenario like this would only be to prevent problems, not to punish. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pikipaki2222: Once again you say I have been abusive for 3 months. How? Show me one diff where you believe I have abused you in any way, shape or form. You cannot make accusations without having anything to back them up. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Before you do: since this was about "long term abuse" and "disruptive editing", I just wanted to point out that a pattern of WP:OWN exists WRT fire-related articles. I don't have the time right now to go through everything, so I'll just highlight the most obvious example. Zackmann created {{Alaska fire departments}} by duplicating the contents of portions of {{Alaska}}, except that the latter template isn't full of redlinks like the former. He reverted my efforts to improve the template here and here under the guise of consistency. Let's go back to the edit which created the template, shall we? There is neither a "City of Badger" nor a "Badger Fire Department". The Badger and Moose Creek CDPs and portions of the Steele Creek CDP along and near the Nordale Road bridge across the Chena River are served by the North Star Volunteer Fire Department. NSVFD is partially administered by the Fairbanks North Star Borough for tax purposes, since the state constitution grants taxation powers to boroughs and cities but not to service areas, which in the case of rural fire departments set the policy for their administration. Likewise, other boroughs don't have a borough fire department, but rather have localized VFDs operating under the same or similar structure. This includes the rare cases of fire departments in the Unorganized Borough outside of incorporated cities, whose taxation structure is adminstered under the executive branch of the state government. First of all, what's "consistent" about creating content referencing non-existent entities and other blatant factual inaccuracies? Furthermore, how does "consistency" trump usefulness? I let this go at the time because there's more important work to do than edit warring, plus there's 3RR to take into consideration. Zackmann's version is certainly an exercise in cleverness in that it finds four different ways to link the same two articles, but is in no way more useful than what I was attempting to do. At this point, coverage of this subtopic amounts to a category and the template and not much else of substance. Let's use common sense here. I realize that we've reached the point where dumping content takes precedence over collaboration time after time, but we have plenty of holes needing filling in when it comes to this subtopic. The impression I get is that he wants to pick low-hanging fruit and claim credit for something, but expects others to come along and do the real work when it comes to this subtopic, evident in all these long-persistent redlinks. As you can see from my explanation above, I would be the one with the expertise to fill in those holes in coverage. However, the notion that I'm welcome to do all this work so long as I agree to another editor's veto power sends one message and one message only: "count me out". I did contribute some relevant images to Commons which were published before 1978 without a copyright notice. OTOH, I always think twice about contributing any of my own photos when it comes to content which is being developed more with puffery than substance in mind. Someone responded to a previous statement I made to that effect saying I was being "selfish", when it's more a matter of the need anyone should have to protect their intellectual property from misuse. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that the concepts of consistency and usefulness should never appear in the same sentence as the word trump. EEng 23:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @RadioKAOS: so your response is to bring up edits I made over a year and a half ago? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, @RadioKAOS: what do your comments about my edits have to do with this discussion? And @Pikipaki2222: I am still waiting for any sort of evidence to back up your claims. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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 ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), 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)[reply]

    FYI, the full protection was lifted a couple of hours ago. Muffled Pocketed 07:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    P.S. As for the rest of the regurgitated allegations by TheTimesAreAChanging: I'm not pretending to have never made mistakes with previous edits. When called out on anything that comes to close to a POV or political edit, I have almost ALWAYS backed down in the spirit of compromise. We all are biases, sure. However, I'm careful to respect that, and one only needs to examine my edits closely to see that I will compromise. The mugshot thing, for instance, is a case in point: this is misleading and gleefully exploited by this editor. When I included it, it was ONLY because D'Souza identifies himself as a political prisoner. Unlike most political commentators who would be ashamed of his jail time, D'Souza is a celebrity conservative pundit who wears his convicted status as a badge of pride. He doesn't simply brag about it- he has woven it obsessively into his personal narrative and brand, presenting himself as a political outlaw in the spirit of Robin Hood taking on Obama as his Sheriff of Nottingham. Ridiculous as this sounds, simply look at his latest partisan 'documentary' about Hillary where he spends a significant portion of his movie dramatizing his jail time as the tale of an innocent man targeted by Obama in a political vendetta. He's the star of his own tale of political persecution, not unlike Donald Trump who claims the world is conspiring against him to rig the election and frame him for sex crimes. I can list citations if you think I'm exaggerating. And it was in that vein that I innocently introduced a cropped mugshot since D'Souza himself proudly identifies with that image. However, immediately after it became clear that others editors disapproved of this, I quickly backed down. There is even a section of our talk page dedicated to this very subject for debate! [[11]] Again, as ridiculous as this sounds, we are talking about radical political figures like Donald Trump and D'Souza, who are part of an emotional movement where this kind of drama is the norm. If that makes me sound 'partisan' to suggest this, then this is a serious problem for wikipedia since our duty to WP:CITE and WP:DUE forbid us from offering false equivalence to radical figures like D'Souza and Trump who both claim the US democratic election is rigged and when charged with serious crimes claim (without evidence) to be framed by the government. It's damned if we do and damned if we don't. I'm not a robot so, yes, my emotion will spill out on the talk pages. But, unlike the disruptive editor who brought these charges against me, I do my best to avoid personal attacks and I make sure above ALL ELSE to keep my edits themselves neutral. Hopefully my edits will be judged, not my feelings in the talk page (where, I would hope, it is okay for us to be honest about our personal political feelings and leanings). For example: if you examine my edits, I am quick to give credit to D'Souza's amazing success as a filmmaker, who himself is like a conservative Michael Moore and deserves credit for his movies making the kind of money it has in a crowded market place. So, even if not perfect, I do my best to maintain neutrality, respect consensus, and respect guidelines.
    To add to SPECIFICO's [[12]] concerns...It should be obvious that TheTimesAreAChanging is actually guilty of page ownership violations by this point. If you look at my edits and another by an editor named SPECIFICO [[13]] that we have to basically go through TheTimesAreAChanging. In fact, most and all changes in the article were reversed by him, with the pretention that he has admin like power to decide what is right or wrong. He then belittles this other edit in his subject headings, calling him 'my pal' or a 'robot' and other digs against that editor.
    TheTimesAreAChanging claims to be an impartial editor trying to protect a page, yet I would like you to examine the subject in this edit [[14]]. In that recent edit, he not only attacks that editor but then blantantly boasts of his right to make a personal attack, confessing to it and rationalizing it!Again, examine this edit TheTimesAreAChanging where he attacks SPECIFICO [[15]] in the subject heading. So, are all of these just "flourishes", as the editor notes? If an editor comes here to make not one but TWO ANIs like this, then they had better be setting a good example themselves. If you examine the subject heading in that edit I listed, TheTimesAreAChanging After being warned by SPECIFICO that "WP:NPA you may make civil behavioral comments on editor talk pages and you may file behavioral complaints on AE or ANI." TheTimesAreAChanginggoes on the attack, saying Your pal called me "hot-headed," "ridiculous," and "partisan"--and much worse elsewhere--yet you redacted only my warning that arbitration is now needed? SPECIFICO, how's this for a personal attack: You're a joke! For the record, I am NOT friends with SPECIFICO. This is just a smug personal attack at least or, at most, a false accusation of meatpuppetry that doesn't belong here at all. This is also the same editor who is still under close watch from admins in the prior ANI for confessing to violating the 3RR rule. Again, he can't have it both ways. Sorry, but my soap box is higher than his horse.
    For him to claim he has a passing interest in the article when he is attacking SPECIFICO, me, and other editors with these kind of attacks and reverts is the definition of WP:OWN violations. Does that sound like an editor who has a passing interest in an article? I think not. If anyone is deserving of a topic ban, it is an editor who games the system this way who himself comes to these proceeding with dirty hands. This is all I care to say about this subject. Forgive the length of it BUT this is the kind of drama some of us have to deal with at the hands of this cunning disruptive editor. Thank you for your time.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking for myself, your explanation of that mugshot thing is not doing a whole lot to dispel my concerns about your ability to approach this topic in a neutral and non-disruptive manner. Even were we to give face value to your assertion that you were just trying to make the article consistent with D'Souza's own self-image, that would still be an inherently non-encyclopedic approach to the topic and a deeply problematic approach to editing in general. But let's be honest here, I don't believe for a second that your action was motivated by an interest to show fidelity to D'Souza's narrative--not when we consider your clear perspective voiced on the talk page and the nature of your edits surrounding the man's status as a felon--and I don't think anyone else is going to buy that story either.
    You have conceded, both on the talk page and here, that changing the infobox image as you did was a bad idea, which is a good start. But both there and here, you continue to try to frame that as an "innocent mistake" that is not in any way connected to any biases you may have on the topic. That strains our capacity to take your comments at face value and believe that you've genuinely taken criticism on board and are capable of contributing in this area without considerable disruption, born of an inherently POV approach to the topic. Again, I can't speak for everyone, but I'd be a lot more inclined to believe you understood criticism of your previous behaviour if you fully owned up to just how inappropriate and non-neutral it was, rather than attempting these bizarre rationalizations. Wikipedia does not have a principle of double jeopardy, as you phrase it, and WP:Sanctions are never handed out for punitive purposes, but solely as preventative measures; therefore, if you show signs of not having recognized and addressed the underlying mindset which led to your previous disruptive behaviour, you can bet the community will act accordingly--and the fact that you were previously warned for this behaviour will not be a procedural protection for you, but rather a factor taken as evidence that you are not hearing the concerns of your fellow editors. Snow let's rap 01:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors should be aware that OP routinely misrepresents facts and cites diffs that do not support his claims. His edit comments are full of personal aspersions and hostile side rants. And he has edit warred on American Politics post 1932 articles after having received the warning template. Speedy close or boomerang is in order here. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To add some TL;DR to all of this: On 16 October 2016, an AN3 was filed by TheTimesAreAChanging against Oneshotofwhiskey for edit warring on Dinesh D'Souza. He also filed an ArbCom request (which was ultimately declined). On October 18, I added a ruling on the AN3 warning both parties to stop edit warring, made them both aware that the article was under discretionary sanctions, and put them both on a final warning basis regarding edit warring on the article. They were both told to resolve their depute on the article's talk page and to keep their discussion towards content and not toward one another. I added further comments in the report here, as well as explained my rationale for the closure of the report on my talk page here when questioned about it. I haven't dug into any details yet, but I figured that I'd give an initial response and add links and a summary to help those that just want the TL;DR. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one will be very interested in hearing your perspective on the most recent bout of accusations and counter-accusations between these two (at your convenience, of course), in light of the fact that you observed the previous behaviour and put them on warning. There seems to be a healthy dose of rationalization for the purpose of excusing disruptive behaviour from both sides, frankly and at present I'm a hair's-breadth from endorsing a topic ban for one, if not both--and I don't think I'm the only one. But I'd like your perspective before that. Snow let's rap 01:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This will take a little time, but yes I do plan on adding my perspective once I've read through everything. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As Snow Rise says, Oneshotofwhiskey's POV-pushing and BLP violations are of an exceptionally grave character: I've seen few parallels in six years of editing Wikipedia. No-one should be persuaded by SPECIFICO's and Oneshotofwhiskey's continued attempts to whitewash what was done—in fact, they are only making themselves look ridiculous by pretending that edits like the mugshot were done in "good faith," untainted by Oneshotofwhiskey's avowed POV. And my own conduct is irrelevant: Even if I were guilty of a minuscule fraction of Oneshotofwhiskey's offenses, bad behavior doesn't justify other bad behavior.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's still doing it! Look at Oneshotofwhiskey's latest personal attack on User:The Four Deuces, whom he accuses of "emotional reasoning" simply for disagreeing with him. Fact is—to the extent he can be categorized—TFD is a fairly liberal editor and surely has no great love for D'Souza; more to the point, TFD's thoughtful analysis is widely respected and has helped resolve many a talk page dispute. (Even SPECIFICO agrees!) Does Oneshotofwhiskey truly seem to have reformed at all, when he can't stop making comments like "Sorry, but thankfully the final word on D'Souza isn't wikipedia if you guys succeed in turning this back into a spin page" (as if Wikipedia is here to provide the "final word" on anything at all)?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Times says "An exceptionally grave character??" Really? For some reason Times accuses me of being in cahoots with Oneshot. He says I tried to whitewash "what was done" -- actually I haven't commented on anything that was done by Whiskey, so Times' accusation that I'm here to whitewash something is just more of his battleground fog. I have never commented on the "mugshot" except one time when Times falsely stated that it had been I who inserted it in the article -- "wrong" -- and it's too bad he repeats that misstatement after it was pointed out to him (twice). WP may not have a protection against "double jeopardy" but cut and pasting a load of undocumented complaints and personal attacks on one board after another is forum-shopping, and taken together with the false aspersions, personal attacks, stalking, and other tendentious and disruptive behavior the whole package suggests that Times could use a time out to see whether he can return in a calmer and more constructive mode of collaboration. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the more Times writes in this thread, the easier it is to see his battleground tactics. Above he says that "even" I agree with Times that TFD has "helped resolve many a talk page dispute" and then posts a link that shows nothing of the sort. It only shows me thanking TFD for replying to a request relating to his opinion on that one thread and calling his response "thoughtful" -- this tactic of either deliberate or irrational obfuscation is disruptive and needs a time out for Times to reflect and reform his behavior. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    EC: I never claimed SPECIFICO added the mugshot; moreover, I did not "repeat that misstatement" (???) above. I do not know why SPECIFICO continues to make such assertions; I have previously corrected him.
    "I haven't commented on anything that was done by Whiskey." Really? What about, e.g., "I have seen Oneshotofwhiskey less frequently. I find that ID to be constructive and usually policy-based in its edits and comments. Oneshot will sometimes take the bait when taunted by an aggressive editor such as TimesAreChanging and would probably do better to walk away rather than engage, but I see no reason for any disciplinary action."
    With regard to the claim of "forum shopping", three editors at AN3 advised me that my complaint "seems better suited to ANI" or recommended I "divert to ANI."
    With regard to SPECIFICO's comment at 3:01, consider the following: SPECIFICO sees "no reason for any disciplinary action" against Oneshotofwhiskey, despite all of the evidence presented above. At the same time SPECIFICO thinks I need "a time out" because someone could possibly misinterpret my comment at 2:52 as suggesting that he agrees with the community view that TFD has resolved many heated disputes (for examples of this, just check out the barnstar's on TFD's user page), when in fact SPECIFICO merely endorsed my own description of TFD's analysis as "thoughtful." (This despite the fact that I provided a link to SPECIFICO's exact words in my aside.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, let's slow things down a bit here--I'd rather my observations not be characterized by a loaded value assessment (like "grave") which I did not myself employ. What I said was that OSOW's efforts to address his previous actions needed perhaps a bit more honesty and self-awareness and a bit less rationalization. Nowhere did I imply that I thought his behaviour was so beyond that pall that he was unable of adressing it to the satisfaction of myself and the other community members commenting here--in fact, I consciously left that question open, pending his response, Oshwah's perspective (which I hope he will not feel rushed to give), and any other context that might be forthcoming from involved parties.
    Honestly, neither of you seems capable of describing the other's conduct without hyperbole, and each additional comment either of you makes seems to march you both a little closer to the nuclear option of just topic banning both of you. Seriously, take it down a notch, guys--at a certain point the histrionics are going to become so pronounced that it won't matter who is acting more appropriately with regard to the content, because your contest of wills will in itself be disruptive enough that the community will have no choice but to remove you both from the topic area. Snow let's rap 03:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything "hyperbolic" about my description. Replacing the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot and ranting about "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)" are, in fact, very serious BLP violations; not a single edit of mine is even remotely comparable. I'm certainly not going to apologize for any "disruption" caused by pointing that out.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that you are frequently resorting to what you characterized as "rhetorical flourishes" above; that is, a pattern of presenting the mindsets and perspectives of other editors (both those you are in conflict with and those you believe are supporting you) in terms which make some considerable leaps from what was explicitly said. I'm AGFing and assuming that you are doing this because of confirmation bias (i.e., you are letting yourself see what you want to see), and not because you are trying to deliberately misrepresent anyone or over-exaggerate their perspectives, but I'm afraid it is a problem.
    Another issue is that, while it is certainly true that OSOW has edited that article in a non-neutral fashion and needs to balance his approach, you aren't giving us enough time to address those matters with him and get a sense of whether or not he is capable of understanding the criticism and adapting to a more acceptable standard of neutrality. I have my concerns about that and would like to see a more explicit statement from him identifying what went wrong, but he has at least expressed a general desire to do that. Now that's not a guarantee that he can correct his approach enough to comport with the community's expectations, given the very POV place from which his behaviour started--and if he can't, there will probably be a topic ban, sooner or later. But you continually coming at him here is not helping us make an assessment of that central issue and, frankly, it's very aggravating. We know your opinion of him. We know his opinion of you. Now, please, let us engage with him to see if we can resolve this amicably for all parties and without sanction, because that is our preferred outcome, wherever it is viable. So I'm afraid I do rather view the disruption as a two-way street at the moment, and would advise you to be calm and let the process take its course. Snow let's rap 04:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have just finished reviewing the evidence and input regarding Oneshotofwhiskey. I will be looking into TheTimesAreAChanging's behavior next. Again, this will take some time; bear with me. In the meantime, my findings and my thoughts regarding Oneshotofwhiskey's conduct is below:
    Looking at the evidence presented, I believe that Oneshotofwhiskey's article modifications, as well as his collaboration with other editors over the article - are problematic. I also believe that they show evidence that reasonably establishes that the editor has a point-of-view that is not neutal.
    After an SPI was filed against him, he left a message on TheTimesAreAChanging's talk page here. In the message, he accuses TheTimesAreAChanging of "defending the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)", and says that his behavior is due to "egomaniac paranoia". On one of his edits made to the article here, he states in his edit summary that "D'Souza was convicted in a court of law and admitted to knowingly breaking the law", and that "we don't need to re-try his case here, spin this, or make excuses for him." This, to me, clearly shows a non-netural viewpoint by Oneshotofwhiskey.
    This viewpoint clearly reflects his editing on the article. For example, TheTimesAreAChanging repeatedly reverted edits restoring the word "knowingly" to the paragraph that describes the article subject's criminal conviction (1, 2, 3, 4). He also replaced the image of the article subject with his mugshot when taken under arrest (1) without consensus or discussion, as well as made an edit here that replaced cited content regarding the article subject's criminal convicion with personal commentary that is against NPOV using the words "without evidence". That same edit also removed content that was cited by the New York Times and without explanation.
    Oneshotofwhiskey also engaged in uncivil and defensive behavior towards other editors over this article by casting aspirations, making personal attacks, and refusing to explain particular edits when asked to do so. He also engaged in edit warring over the article, causing it to be fully protected. At the time of this writing, this article is under discretionary sanctions per this ArbCom ruling. Oneshotofwiskey has also been officially notified of the discretionary sanctions regarding this conflict area on his talk page.
    With the evidence presented above, and with the findings, input, discussions taken into consideration - I believe that a sanction upon Oneshotofwhiskey from editing any page relating to, or making any edit about, Dinesh D'Souza, broadly construed - is reasonable and justified if the community comes to this conclusion. This is not a ruling; I am not imposing a sanction at this time (I want community input first). Please provide your input and thoughts below. I welcome feedback. Thank you, everybody! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, there is no requirement that editors be neutral. Most editors working on political topics on WP are not neutral. It would be nice to have a mass of disinterested editors who are eager to work on political topics, but that is not the way Wikipedia works; and WP:NPOV specifically states Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. Secondly, all of the diffs above were before the protection had been imposed (around 18-19 October). Since then, there has been about a week's worth of edits to the talk page; there has been no disruption to the article or the talkpage which I can see. Thirdly, several of the statements above are factually wrong; for instance "without evidence" is a paraphrase of the judge's ruling The court concludes the defendant has respectfully submitted no evidence he was selectively prosecuted. It is redundant (because it is in the next sentence) and can be dropped, but it is not WP:OR. The NYT reference was removed for the reason given in the edit summary; it was used to quote D'Souza's defence lawyers and the editor said that one does not need to re-litigate the case on the WP talkpage. One may agree or disagree with the reasoning, but it was present. Lastly, Oneshotofwhiskey should be careful about using phrases like like "egomaniac paranoia" in discussions (it was in a user talk page discussion, not in article space). This is because WP:BLP applies everywhere, and one must be respectful of living persons whatever one may think of them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsindian, I want to thank you for your response and your input regarding my thoughts. I think that part of my response above came out differently than I wanted the words to convey (this happens when I try and write while I'm tired... haha). I've re-read and redacted some of my statements above. I agree that neither editor was notified during the time that disruption was occurring (something I also stated in my ruling at AN3 - and the reason I imposed no sanctions). I also agree that disruption has not continued and that you're right in that the edit I mentioned above can be seen as paraphrasing, not commentary. I should acknowledge that, having decided not to impose sanctions at AN3, it would be perhaps unfair to impose them now. See, this is why I like getting the community involved and opening things up for input as opposed to going, "Whelp, this is how I feel! Klunk!" - thanks again for your response, Kingsindian! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Oneshotofwhiskey has just been blocked as an action that resulted from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oneshotofwhiskey. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: has asked me to post the following information that came up on his talk page this morning. In Oshwah's closure of the recent AN3 complaint, one of the reasons he gave for not sanctioning Times was that Oshwah did not realize that Times had been given notice of the ARBAP sanctions in November 2015, nearly a year before his recent violation. Times was notified in November 2015 [16] and then, not realizing this, I warned him in Oct 2016, prompting some kind of denial in his edit comment deleting the notification here: [17] shortly thereafter, Robert McClendon also notified him with the template. So, for nearly a year after he was warned of the ARBAP sanctions, editor Times continued his disruptive behavior. A look through his talk page archives shows many editors of all stripes politely asking him to stop personal attacks and battlegrounding, only to receive snarky or accusatory replies. Unlike relatively new editor Whiskey, Times continued to escalate his attacks and disruption even after he was formally notified of DS. (Oshwah, I hope I've accurately conveyed what you suggested.) SPECIFICO talk 03:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "For nearly a year after he was warned of the ARBAP sanctions, editor Times continued his disruptive behavior." I don't think that rather hyperbolic statement can, in fact, be fairly attributed to Oswah, who was only concerned with whether I knew or should have known about the relevant discretionary sanctions. You have produced no evidence of any "disruption" at all prior to this dispute—let alone disruption going back "nearly a year." In fact, I almost never edit articles related to American politics, so I had to check my edit history for the month of November 2015 to see why I might have received such a message. While I have no recollection of the matter, it appears I made one revert at United States presidential election, 1968 on November 12, thus prompting a boilerplate message the following day. I made no other edits even vaguely related to American politics that November, unless you count a very specific foreign policy-related edit to Jimmy Carter: You're going to need more than a single, year-old revert to prove a systematic campaign of disruption targeting American political articles. Until you have gathered such evidence, I would suggest putting the polemics aside.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had forgot to login when I was making edits and for that I was banned as a sock. It was clear in my edits under that IP that I was arguing with my accuser about his threat to do an API against me and in his responses to me he was aware it was me. I never pretended to be someone else, which is implied by socking. Yet he misrepresented me anyway and tricked the SPI clerks, using this as a tactic. I'm glad this happened as it should be clear now this is wp:gaming. Editors shouldn't weaponize APIs or SPIs against editors. Carefully exam my edits under the IP when I forgot to login and then compare it to what my accuser dishonestly wrote in his SPI, then compare it to his own responses to me when I wasn't logged in, and it should be clear this is gaming. In fact, it was the third SPI against me from him, the first one he was admonished, the 2nd one (sorta) overturned on appeal (in email to me at least) and now this one which is clearly a bad faith accusation. It is not like I made another account to make those replies to him on the talk page. Ridiculous. Same edit war, different tactics. And if this is seen as a block evade, my bad. But I'm limiting this to one comment which is necessary so this ANI isn't further contaminated by his deception. Lotsa luck gentlemen204.96.25.202 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has been blocked for a week. It shows that they are unwilling to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and further disruptive behavior should lead to longer blocks. Their writing is too polemical for an encyclopedia. We don't routinely refer to Hitler as a convicted criminal or conspiracy theorist in his article although he served time for trying to overthrow the government of Bavaria and propagated the international Jewish conspiracy theory. The article uses the tone one expects in encyclopedic writing. TFD (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Pageban for Oneshotofwhiskey

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

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

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

    Proposal: Page Ban for TimesAreAChanging

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

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

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

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

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

    As mentioned above, to claim that "Whiskey did cease misbehaving" is only to reveal your own tenuous grasp of the facts surrounding this dispute. If his edit warring abated, that's because I stopped touching the article after being warned, leaving Oneshotofwhiskey to more or less have his way with it for a sustained period of time. Even then, he was reverting as recently as October 25, the day prior to his current block—to say nothing of his continuous personal attacks against several editors. Because I have no particular interest in Dinesh D'Souza, having only recently added it to my Watchlist after seeing last summer's D'Souza-Cenk Uygur Politicon debate, I would not be terribly upset if both Oneshotofwhiskey and myself were banned from the topic. I would, however, point out that you have produced no evidence to suggest the necessity of such a ban, making your proposal seem like a distraction and an attempt to "split the baby."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Times says Whiskey reverted something on 10/25. True enough. However, Times' edit warring continued through the 26th. Half truths and accusations like this put the rest of us in a draconian time sump trying to restore civility. This is exactly why Times needs a theraputic time out to reframe his approach to this topic and his WP colleagues. Does it make any sense that we close this long thread -- with prima facie violations of ARBAP2 -- only to see the community go through the same exercise at Arbcom Enforcement? Let's do the right thing and wrap it up here. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a fallacy to suggest that, because Oneshotofwhiskey and myself both made edits to the article, we were both being equally disruptive. Oneshotofwhiskey was edit warring to restore contentious "conspiracy theory" language into the lead of a BLP—despite his own pledge not to do so until the relevant RfC was closed. Moreover, while the RfC is still ongoing, the current consensus seems to be against including that language in Wikipedia's voice, so it is hardly surprising that another user (not myself, as I was still maintaining a strict laissez-faire policy at the time) attempted to water it down: What was absolutely shocking—and incredibly disruptive—was Oneshotofwhiskey's prompt revert, which arguably constituted a BLP violation and thus was not subject to normal edit warring restrictions. I do not see how my restoration of the old lead on October 26 could be considered any more "disruptive" than your deletions on October 27. Note that between your edit summary there and your comments here, both you and Iselilja seem to have endorsed my rationale for reverting the WP:BOLD addition of a subsection on D'Souza's "marriage scandal"—if there is broad consensus for such a change I can hardly be called "disruptive" for enforcing the will of the community and restoring the long-standing version. Again, your edit summary here is highly significant: Having argued that certain language is a BLP violation in reference to the Clinton Foundation, it would be very hypocritical of you to assert that nearly identical language is not a BLP violation in reference to D'Souza ... But if you've conceded that the material I reverted constituted a BLP violation similar to the violation you removed around the same time, then you have no case for a page ban whatever. In the best case scenario, perhaps you did not literally believe your own rationale in that edit summary and were merely being WP:POINTY—yet that, too, would reflect a rather unbecoming WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. In fact, if you think using the term "scandal" in reference to the Clinton Foundation constitutes a BLP violation, it's hard to see how you could maintain that not only the "marriage scandal" section of the D'Souza article but especially the claim that D'Souza promotes "conspiracy theory"—arguably the most serious BLP violation of all—is perfectly fine and acceptable, all the while praising Oneshotofwhiskey's "constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Page Ban for SPECIFICO

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

    • Support as nominator. (BTW, while I understand SPECIFICO can always plausibly deny that she was fully aware of the "Marriage Scandal" BLP violations her revert introduced into the article on October 13, she cannot claim that she had never argued such language constituted a BLP violation prior to October 27, because she had in fact made the same argument on September 7. If she does deny that she knew what she was doing, then I will strike my support and content myself with a warning.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I don't see issues that measure up to the level of needing to impose any sanctions here. The message that SPECIFICO left here seemed neutral and reasonable. This edit she made has multiple problems, sure. I also note that it's understandable for editors to question this edit because of the possible use of a primary source - but that's absolutely irrelevant to me. The reason I oppose this proposition is because of the fact that these diffs are the only edits that this user has made to this article in October (with the exception of this one), or at least that I could find. She did not edit war, and she has been seen as a neutral party in the recent events with this article. I see no reason to consider a sanction, and the assertions presented here appear to have absolutely no merit at all. If I missed something, or if more evidence comes to light, please ping me and let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just making a follow-up to state that edits have been made to the article by SPECIFICO since my previous response. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I reviewed SPECIFICO's edits tot hat article and they appear to me to improve neutrality, for example reducing the use of value judgments in favour of passive statements. Guy (Help!) 00:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone look at PogingJuan's recent edits?

    PogingJuan (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly posting messages on my talk page, and pinging me on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte and on his own talk page, and directly addressing me in article edit summaries, ironically accusing me of "harassment", "bullying" and so on.

    It was annoying at first, but now it's starting to look threatening. It apparently got worse after I twice removed an out-of-place citation he kept trying to add to the article.[18][19][20] He doesn't seem to understand why it was inappropriate. These two are particularly worrying. I would give more diffs, but literally every single edit he's made in the past two weeks has been problematic.

    I came across the problem because of a recently-archived ANI thread he started that was similarly questionable, and would have likely ended in a WP:BOOMERANG if he didn't filibuster it.

    Could someone look at this?

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Dennis Brown: With humility, I've discussed it clearly to User:Hijiri88, but seems he didn't understand or even listen my side on including the sentence on the article (I've added a citation, supporting it), that was not clearly sourced at first. I think, it's because he thinks that I hate him on siding with User:Signedzzz (I have actually looked it as lawyering as Hijiri88 keeps on explaining while Signedzzz do not), whom I and User:RioHondo have problems about the allegations of death threat and NPOV edits of Signedzzz, during the past ANI discussion, Hijiri88 have provided on the OP. I've also sent you a message on your talk page last October 20 (UTC) to request you an insight. Back to the Galing Pook award inclusion now, you may refer to this link. There I have resided my explanation on how that sentence must be included on the article, that then-mayor Duterte also became a key to gender mainstreaming in Davao City and must be credited too. But this Hijiri88 insists that I am reverting his edit because I don't like it and he'll request me to be blocked 1. He did even accuse me of having a political agenda (apparently a WP:CoI) while I haven't any 2. I see hypocrisy there, because Signedzzz, whom he has been lawyering on the unclosed ANI discussion, don't remind him about the obvious WP:CoI as RioHondo have proven. ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown: Did the above answer your question? Can you tell me what the above post (or any of the "clear" "discussion" on the talk page) has to do with ASEAN or the environment? Because I can't figure it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston is taking the lead and I agree with his cautious approach here. That doesn't mean blocks aren't coming, it means he (and I) hope blocks aren't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have fully protected Rodrigo Duterte five days per a request at WP:RFPP. In my opinion, recent edits by several people have been less than optimal. This is a good moment to try to have a calm discussion on the article talk page and get agreement on the things being disputed. Any changes that have consensus can be made during the protection by using the {{Edit fully protected}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: "content dispute and edit-warring"? The closest thing to edit-warring has been PogingJuan's repeated attempts to reinsert a source that has nothing to do with the article content, and that is not a content dispute because it has ... nothing to do with article content. I actually don't give a damn about the article content -- all I know is that at present it looks like crap and is very poorly sourced. Shit. Didn't realize that there actually was a content dispute and edit-war that overshadowed my problem immediately afterward and immediately before your RFPP post. Just looking at what you wrote on RFPP, it looked like you were talking about PogingJuan and me. Sorry for the confusion.
    @EdJohnston: This is not about the Duterte page, and there isn't even a content dispute -- I reported PogingJuan because of his user conduct issues. Telling me that I should discuss "the things being disputed" with PogingJuan is telling me I should endure more harassment and nonsense non sequiturs. I honestly have no idea what things are being disputed. Sorry. Just found out what you were referring to. VanHalen09 and Signedzzz appear to be engaged in an unrelated content dispute and edit war. This has nothing to do with my problem with PogingJuan's constant attacks, attempts to intimidate, templating the regulars, and refusal to listen when I explain to him that inserting random citations with nothing to do with article content is inappropriate. Before I noticed the subsequent bona fide edit war, it also looked like "less than optimal" was referring to my removal of blog-like citations, since they were the only recent edits of substance that I was aware of. Again, apologies for the misunderstanding.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC) (Edited 21:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    Yes, presumably this is about VanHalen09 removing a cited quote claiming that it is not mentioned in the source. After two reverts he admitted that it was in fact in the source and apologised. Dispute over. Then he insisted on moving the quote - about Duterte's personal life - out of the personal life section, and into the "Controversies and criticism" section. I reverted, and asked him to please not move stuff out of the relevant section and into the trivia section. He claimed he wasn't doing that, and did it again anyway. At which point I left him to it. The page block came later on, and makes no sense whatsoever in terms of article content, but certainly shut down this discussion very effectively. zzz (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri 88, PogingJuan is one of the people who forms part of the war. Since you included diffs of edits at Rodrigo Duterte in your complaint, I assume that my protecting that article is a relevant step. At present there is no problem that should keep everyone from joining in discussions at Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. If people can't engage there without personal attacks then admin action might be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have spent the last several weeks trying to discuss with him. Look at the 4000+ word ANI thread that consists primarily of him trying to convince me that the problem was one-sided POV-pushing by Signedzzz. He claimed there were problems with the article, so I stepped in and started trying to fix them. I immediately found. The problems that none of PogingJuan's talk page comments make any sense or properly address the problems (look at his post in this thread), and PogingJuan is extremely aggressive, have nothing to do with article content. I conceded that "Davao city received X award" could stay for the time being and the source that directly supported it could stay as well, but when I tried to remove the other citation that had nothing to do with it, he reverted me twice, and then he started trying to threaten me for "harassing" him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider opening a WP:Request for comment about the Davao City issue at Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. It would be easier for admins to decide who to sanction if we could see at least some people trying to go through the proper steps of WP:Dispute resolution. You made reference to a 4000-word thread here in Archive936 but that was so confusing it's unlikely it could have led to any action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    RFCU was abandoned some years ago. If I have a problem with a user repeatedly posting threatening messages on my talk page, [21][22][23] accusing me of "personal attacks" and "harassment" for removing an out-of-place citation in an article,[24][25], accusing me of "biting" a "newcomer" by reverting a disruptive edit he made and explaining to him how it was disruptive (after he had already threatened me),[26] refactoring and decontextualizing my messages on his talk page,[27] pinging me on his talk page before immediately removing the entire thread so I get a notification that he posted an attack against me but am unable to respond,[28][29][30] refusing to look at the content of my edit or even read the edit summary before reverting me,[31] referring to me diminutively as "bro" and insinuating that I lack common sense,[32] and generally not making any sense in their comments, then ANI is where I am supposed to go to request some more eyes on the problem, no? Whether "Davao City" is synonymous with "Rodrigo Duterte" is irrelevant to these problems, and opening an RFC to deal with it would not solve these problems. I'm all for not biting the newcomers, but when a newcomer is this litigious and aggressive, and after five months and several ANI, ANEW and doesn't seem to understand how to engage in civil discussion, then we should be protecting the experienced editors who don't have the time or energy to come up with creative solutions to getting themselves bitten by aggressive newcomers. I did not come here to request that PogingJuan be blocked -- I would be content with a mentoring solution similar to the TheStrayDog issue that was presented here a few weeks back. But I don't want to do the mentoring myself as (among other reasons) it doesn't look like PogingJuan would be amenable to me being his mentor anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update Apparently PogingJuan is going to pull away from the Duterte article and will reflect on his editing. This is hopefully the end of the issue, and even if it is not I will hopefully not have to be the one to deal with it next time. I find it concerning, though, that even in saying that he realized he was wrong on the article substance he failed to recognize that the bigger problem was his repeatedly inserting of a citation that had nothing to do with the aticle substance. This means that he still doesn't get why this was wrong, and is therefore liable to do it again somewhere else. I don't mind this thread being closed now, since PogingJuan has apparently agreed to stop harassing and threatening me personally, but I still think some mentoring or other oversight would be a good idea going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If I am right, the issue here is about the citation of Galing Pook award that barely names Duterte and therefore inappropriate to include it on the article, isn't it? I have recognized that already, that it was really inappropriate as Duterte was not the recipient, though it was awarded on Davao City under Duterte admin. My explanation on Hijiri88's talk page was based on the same Galing Pook citation, stating "doing good governance is not only about the governors and mayors, but the participation of the people, especially the women" so meaning, the award was not only attributed on Duterte but also his constituents and therefore, it was really inappropriate to include the Galing Pook citation on Duterte article, and so I agree that it may be placed on maybe Government of Davao City or Davao City. And yes, as I said to Hijiri88, I will get rid myself on editing Duterte article temporarily and instead focus on other articles and creating articles for the upcoming Wikipedia Asian Month 2016. I am also really hoping that the problems regarding proper citations and neutrality on Rodrigo Duterte article will be solved. Regards. ~Manila's PogingJuan 18:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. As I have stated numerous times, it's about the citation attached to the Galing Pook award that doesn't mention Duterte or the Galing Pook award at all. It's the one you kept edit-warring over after my concession that the actual statement about the Galing Pook award and its source could stay in the article pending consensus to remove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: Ah that one! The ASEAN Cooperation on Environment source?. Oh my God, so, that is the real problem after all? I'm so stupid that I haven't looked onto your edit. I thought you have reverted it all. And that's why you have said PogingJuan, if you blankly revert me again because you didn't like PART of my edit, I will request that you be blocked per WP:CIR. I really thought you have reverted it all, just because you don't like my edit, due to our opposing views on recently-archived ANI thread. I haven't even thought that you have conceded the sentence, and for that stupidity of mine, I'm really sorry. ~Manila's PogingJuan 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I have just inserted that ASEAN Cooperation on Environment source, because it states in the citation under Awards & Recognitions the The Gender Mainstreaming Program of the Davao City Government chosen as one of the Top 10 Most Outstanding Programs in the Galing Pook Awards in 2004. You may look this screenshot. You may also look it manually at the website (if you're using Windows, you can use CTRL+F). Meaning, I have included that citation as a support citation only. Now, if that is not really necessary, we may not include that citation. Once again, I'm sorry for me barking up the wrong tree. Still, I'm not changing my stance that I will temporarily get rid of editing Duterte article, as it have affected my editing routine. ~Manila's PogingJuan 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor on a mission: folkloristics vs cryptozoology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • I wish you would explain exactly what Bloodofox is doing that's so bad. Removing content? What kind of content? Removing species? Moving stuff around? Are you talking about edits like this one? That edit seems perfectly valid. This shouldn't be cited anywhere in an encyclopedia (the website of a psychic? fo shizzle?), and this, while dead, has a telling URL: this is something for fourth graders. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bloodofox has, in the past, edit warred over blanking-and-redirecting (see [33] on Cryptid in August 2016; [34] on Lake monster in February/March 2016 [full disclosure: I was involved in that last one]), but that doesn't appear to be an issue recently. If anything, I'd like to see a note on the talk page when Bloodofox adds tags to a page like this or this. If he's not going to fix the issues himself, a brief rationale behind the tags would help other editors who aren't as familiar with the subject area. clpo13(talk) 18:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm...those tags...but they come with an edit summary. Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha, but those two diffs on Agogwe and Ahool (what on earth are those things??), I can not find fault with them, and I have no doubt we've all tagged articles in that way, throwing our hands in the air, not knowing what on earth to do with something. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    • Comment - Boy have I noticed the exact same thing with user Bloodofox. He deletes rather than discuss, he removes Cryptid redirects to "List of cryptids" because he is on a mission to remove the entire subject from wikipedia. He make continual personal attacks rather than staying on topic. I have avoided taking him to Ani because that often makes things worse, but I ran across this and had to comment. This particular topic seems to bring out the worst in him and he should probably avoid it as much as possible. Certainly he has "some" good ideas, but his blunt force method and manner of conversation is quite terrible and needs to be fixed in some way. I just had to fix his redirect of Cryptid that he had to know would upset people. He delinked the word in the Cryptozoology article also. I didn't fix that yet since I noticed this complaint. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cryptozoology is a true science, and that the articles could use more sourcing, but they are surely wikipedia compatible. Not everything is science 101 here. We have thousands of articles on tv characters, large articles on astrology, card game rules, minor league baseball players, etc.. I have brought up that the "List of cryptids" article needs more sourcing, some trimming, and some expansion, but I usually get just personal attacks and hatchet removals from Bloodofox. That's no really working with other editors as we can see by the complaints here. Even as I write this another personal strike just hit my talk page. He just doesn't get it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    When you clean up articles involving pseudoscience, you inevitably run into their proponents. Of course, they'd much prefer that the articles remain as friendly to their pet pseudosciences as possible. Fyunck is one such example (i.e., when not edit-warring without comment or trying his best to get me to edit-war, Fyunck lets the mask slip now and then with comments about his distaste for "global warming alarmists" and how much he dislikes editing with academic editors while making all sorts of pro-crypto-jibber-jabber along the way). Editors can themselves see my edit summary regarding the redirect. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    edit warring and personal attacks are what Bloodofox is best at. All one has to do is check out his edit history with me to see massive examples of both. This is simply a topic he has no control over himself with, and it's getting to be a big problem. Whenever someone calls him on his attacks and deletions he goes back to old comments to throw you off the scent. No one buys this stuff anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even agreeing that these articles are "PSEUDOSCIENCE". Are they PSEUDOSCIENCE or "folklore"? And I am on to your evil plan to classify articles as crptids/PSEUDOSCIENCE and folklore, with your agenda to impose academic folkloric standards to these articles. All anyone has to do is look at how you have POV, WP:OWN the Troll article since you first started editing that in 2009. I can appreciate the cultural propriety with that topic and other Norse folklore that you have had your way with, but the fact remains that you have turned an edited by consensus article into a trap where only special academic folklorists work may be used as ref. It discourages editors-look at all the pleas to include Billy Goats Gruff, but no. That is not going to work with the Jersey Devil and other topics where you are trying to gain folklore sanctions and power. There IS NO PSEUDOSCIENCE on the JD page anyhow, so why is it continually mentioned by you? I'm not even agreeing that cryptozoology IS PSEUDOSCIENCE, but if it is, I don't believe that you are applying it properly here.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • bloodofox is aiming in the right direction. They have raised issues in this set of articles at the WP:FRINGEN a couple of times and i have taken a look. Many of these articles are badly sourced or unsourced and many are full of cruft. I sympathize with their efforts to clean these up, but I don't like to edit topics where there are so few high quality sources as it leads to ugly disputes like those described above. That's all I wanted to say. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You mean Bloodofox has raised these issues at WP:FRINGEN and many other places as he canvasses for any kind of support. No one is saying these articles are science (or at least I hope not). They are more entertainment than anything else and sourcing should follow that type of protocol. As long as it's pointed out what this topic is and isn't with regards to science there should be no problem at all. But Bloodofox isn't even trying... just chopping away anything he personally doesn't like in very bully-like fashion... and that goes over quite poorly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • TeeVeed "forgot" to mention that he has been fighting a battle to maintain in-universe descriptions of things that don't exist based on crap sources. See also WP:USEFUL. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    wait-User:JzG, are you talking about me? On the JD topic, as far as "not existing", Huh? The topic exists and has been documented for over a hundred years. JD is the state demon of NJ, (OK I have not verified that-but it sounds right). I'm confused because you state in-universe, so maybe you don't mean me since the topic exists in reality. (no comment about if JD exists) And I have not noticed where Bloodofox uses "crap sources", so that's why I'm wondering who you mean here? In my personal dispute with Bloodofox, I would call origin references and topic content related to Native Americans in the area pretty "important". At one point, Bloodofox rm an infobox link to First_Reported = Native American folklore https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jersey_Devil&diff=prev&oldid=744091340 . I don't want to argue that edit at this point, but it is just another example of judgement calls on Bloodofox's part that should be examined. The mention of Native American background to the topic goes beyond WP:USEFUL and is most certainly encyclopedic.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG is correct. There is no Native American origin for the Jersey Devil stories, which historically are always linked to colonial settlers. Fortunately, we can trace exactly what happened here: Loren Coleman's Mysterious America, in discussing the Jersey Devil, refers to Poquessing Creek (on the borders of Philadelphia, on the opposite side of New Jersey from the Pine Barrens) as "Popuessing" and translates it as "place of the dragon". In fact, it's consistently translated, by sources on Algonquin toponyms as "place of mice". So the only "topic content related to Native Americans in the area" relevant to the Jersey Devil is something that Coleman invented within the current century. (He also has the date wrong on when the Swedish name was bestowed, which makes his account of the "footprints" suspect.) People have been inventing spurious folklore and putting it online for a long time (e.g., the Ong's Hat project), and critical investigation and research is important to distinguish between authentic folklore and modern inventions. The removal of uncritically compiled information from unreliable sources like these by Bloodofox is improving the encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oooh, I have to partially retract that. Joel Cook (in 1900) does refer to Poquessing as "stream of the dragons", so the error doesn't originate with Coleman, but he doesn't provide any etymology; it's possible that he read Scharf & Wescott, who say that "The ancient spelling of this name is Poetquessingh and Pouquessinge, interpreted by Lindstrom as 'Rivière de Kakamons,' or (as a variation) 'Rivière des Dragons.'" But Lindstrom's map was simply recording the Swedish names, and there's no reason to believe that this was a direction translation of "Poquessing". Choess (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Choess, it sounds like your specialization could do the Jersey Devil article a lot of good. If you're willing to put some work into bringing the article up to WP:GA standards, I'd be glad to help where I can. For much of its life the article seems to have been relegated to promoting ad links (a bunch of which I've just removed) and espousing monster hunting over discussing the complex social and historical factors that produce figures like the Jersey Devil. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TY for considering all that User:Choess, and yeah I am suspicious about the Indian origin too, but Coleman did have it published in a book in a paragraph directly related to the Jersey Devil. So using what I've always thought are the standards we apply here, the Coleman ref is better than OR or synthesizing on my part. I'd even be willing to have some consensus about that info., and in fact opened up a RS request on the source. My problem isn't so much the JD edits or article, it is that I'm getting a WP:SPA feeling with User:Bloodofox and I did not appreciate being given incorrect editing "advice" in the edit summaries. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for a measured and polite reponse, @TeeVeeed:, to my rather rude and intemperate one; I'm afraid I was upset by seeing that Coleman has unintentionally propagated some misinformation into pop culture and took that out on you, which I should not have. This process—going into an area on Wikipedia which lots of questionable sourcing and trying to winnow out accurate information—is always going to be tense and a bit painful for people who have been working there. I know bloodofox can be very dogged in working on folklore topics, but even delicately handled, there is always going to be an aspect of "wiping out". I was very fond of paranormal and cryptozoological literature when I was younger (Back before the Web was a thing, youngins. And I wore an onion on my belt, as was the fashion in those days.) and in retrospect, a lot of it was built up like a game of "telephone": one book would copy from an older one, and gradually coincidences would be exaggerated, small details would change, irregularities would be overlooked, in the interests of building up a better story. The Web is already loaded with pages that will tell you all the different stories that have been told about Ogopogo or Champ or Mokele-Mbembe, and Wikipedia repeating them uncritically doesn't add much value. Dissecting what material is original and what is legend added after the fact is a much more valuable service to our readers. I'll try to leave some commentary on the Jersey Devil later. Choess (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And User:Jytdog. Yep. Bloodofox has appealed for assistance but only assistance in Bloodofox's agenda to wipe-out cryptozoology. I think that Bloodofox either needs to get some oversight or stop editing on the topic. And yes, many good edits. The problem is the agenda-driven edits which delete (good) content and references. I would say that Bloodofox is a WP:SPA, and not only that using that SPA destructively sometimes.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would advise you to re-read every comment from an experienced editor made on this thread. Above, you actually raised this diff as problematic (where content was removed that was sourced to "vernon kids" (a site for 4th graders) and this which says it is sourced in part from Wikipedia, and you say you restored it. (which you did) Oy. Just oy. Please do read WP:NOTEVERYTHING - it isn't long. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, User: Jytdog I already said that I know I made a mistake there re-adding a dead link and whatever else I did wrong there. This complaint is about incorrect advice given in summaries, and WP:Spa mostly. It wasn't until later that I noticed that User:Bloodofox had been deleting Coleman refs in particular. Not including everything (specific to the Native american info.?)may be worth talking about on the article TP, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is incorrect policy declarations/demands in edit summaries and elsewhere and acting like a SPA. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I look forward to one day producing a sub article for my user page entitled The Agenda of Bloodofox for all my nefarious deeds. Or maybe something like the Bloodofoxicon, further promoting dastardly confusion about whether or not my ancient user name is Blood o' Fox or Blood-of-Ox. But in all seriousness, all users are welcome to follow the discussion about what to do with this problematic list. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I just point out to everyone, in case it was not blindingly obvious, that there is a big difference between opposing a pro-pseudoscience view and promoting an anti-pseudoscience view? And in fact neither is halfway as problematic as promoting a pro-pseudoscience view. We must never lose sight of the fact that cryptids are mythological. A cryptid ceases to be a cryptid once there is persuasive evidence that it actually exists. Guy (Help!) 01:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one of the common criticisms that biologists make about cryptozoologists is that cryptozoologists have never found what cryptozoologists call a cryptid. Meanwhile, biologists regularly describe and catalogue new species (there's some discussion about this at cryptozoology). Of course, this is no surprise: cryptozoology uses a lot of science-sounding faux-taxonomical terminology but shuns the scientific method. While ultimately whimsical and probably a lot of fun for adherents, cryptozoology is in the same league as ghost hunting: a lot of technical devices for hunting entities from the folklore record and fancy-sounding internal terminology, and yet total academic rejection because it's cut and dry, classic pseudoscience.
    These comments make me feel as though I should highlight a few things here. Biologists aside, it's important to consider why folklorists don't give cryptozoologists the time of day (albeit now and then they'll study the cryptozoologists themselves). Academics reject the term cryptid and the Pokémon-like concept behind it: they're not looking to catch sneaky aquatic dinosaurs or trap extremely deceptive ape-men. Instead, folklorists aim to describe and discuss the complex social, historical, and cultural factors that led (and lead) to the development of these figures—and what it all means. The word cryptid, coined and used by cryptozoologists to imply that a creature from the folklore record is just hiding somewhere, is not in general usage and remains totally obscure to the general population (again, see discussion at cryptozoology).
    As for the state of Wikipedia's folklore coverage, I think it's important that we consider this: without the efforts of our geology-minded editors, we'd have a plethora of emic-voiced articles espousing the virtues of considering the earth to be flat or hollow. Yet imagine if our geology articles (such as geology) never had any geologist editors on board the project. That's essentially where we're at with most of our folklore articles. Many of them are written in cryptozoology POV to this day, outright describing diverse entities from Japanese folklore to the Philippines as cryptids and salivating at claims of sightings while linking to sites like cryptomundo and citing cryptozoologists like Loren Coleman. And this is a big problem: take a glance at all these articles.
    It says a lot that this project once had such an active Cryptozoology Wikoproject and yet it doesn't seem to have ever had a Wikiproject Folklore or Wikiproject Folkloristics—the latter would have nipped a lot of these problems in the bud. Some active folklorists involved in the project at an early date could have really helped turn to the site into a great place for folklore coverage. Instead, the pseudoscience has come to dominate, despite policies like WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:UNDUE. Along with the ads and dead links, stripping out the pseudoscience is a necessary step for improving these articles.
    Of course, cryptozoology shouldn't be conflated with general folk belief about figures such as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. I've seen some users doing this. Cryptozoologists are a tiny group today, largely enabled by the internet, and no doubt many of our Wikipedia articles are their biggest promotional tool. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    History of unsourced and promotional edits

    Rockspeter60 (talk · contribs) has culminated a difficult history by persistently re-creating his autobiography here. I'd venture that the user needs guidance, but he's edited here for at least two years and doesn't appear to welcome assistance. 2601:188:1:AEA0:54FE:11E3:7566:4F1F (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange reference removals by IP

    There is to bring attention to a strange removal of references by IP 46.5.0.71. across pages. [[35]] Limit-theorem (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It's more than just removing references; it's removing (small bits of) content along with the removals, and adding in unsourced one-liners. This needs attention from someone who can block IPs. Argyriou (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why isn't the IP just being warned properly and then reported at WP:AIV? If he's removing sourced information, that's well within what can be handled there. He hasn't yet received a final warning. ~ Rob13Talk 14:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And they haven't edited since 07:04 in any case. Muffled Pocketed 15:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A warning would still do before any further actions, however. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 17:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm 100% sure its the person who was editing under IP 24.22.226.17 before. If you look at that IP's edit log you'll see he's targeted the same group of articles and performed the same odd actions to blank and remove data. He has also used the same tactics to hide the edits; simpler edit notes, claiming it violate WP:COI or hiding the removal by adding something small and inconsequential. Assuming they are the same person the user has therefore ignored repeated attempts as communication, warning and two blocks on editing issued on 6-Oct-16 and 18-Oct-16. Unless he stops, based on the history he will edit again in about 5 to 12 days and do the same thing, but in the mean time I reported his new IP address earlier on WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 18:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to request the articles in question get semi-protection at WP:RFPP, that is about the only thing that works in these cases of stealth vandalism. Their goal is simply to brag about how they undermined the integrity of Wikipedia. Life gets lonely in mom's basement, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's just one IP (not a hopper) and he is vandalizing or engaging only in disruptive editing, then blocking the IP is a better solution. Can protect the pages if he appears again, but that's not necessary for now. As Bob says above, he should be talk-page warned and reported at WP:AIV.The other IP mentioned in this thread geolocates to a completely different continent and the articles actually are different, not the same group. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I just ran into

    If a user is being disruptive, please warn them appropriately and then report at WP:AIV for obvious vandalism/disruption. Coming straight to ANI isn't going to accomplish anything. BU Rob13 07:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    First off, when posting here, you are required to inform the user you're complaining about. For fairness, sake, basically. I'll do that for you.
    If faced by changes that lack sources, revert per WP:V and leave a note for the user in question, using (for instance) {{uw-unsourced}}. If it's obviously wrong, use {{uw-vandalism}} instead.
    Kleuske (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The changes look well intentioned even if wrong. That census link is broken, so it is hard to verify whether or not 9400 or 10000 is correct, so you can't say they are necessarily wrong. The other changes are not great but not vandalism (group -> war party, etc) And yes, notify next time, and try to discuss with them first if it looks like it might be well intentioned edits. We have a lot of rules around here, they aren't obvious to a newb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    When I find someone, as I did with this editor at Villasur expedition, just changing dates, I'll just fix it. i did not realize that I could communicate with unregistered users, so i the future I'll do that before coming here.Carptrash (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks and pings

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

    • I was hovering over the block button here, but as we have not heard from the editor I have final warned them. Any other admin is welcome to overrule me if they think I have been too lenient. The comments at the top of their talk page suggests I probably have been, but ... Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite, Apart from the fact he made a special personal-attack section and kept pinging me after I told him to stop, he also modified my message as seen in here and others as well around the day I noticed him again in the Guadalcanal campaign article. Not to mention, he has a history of not collaborating well with others and one need only to look at his history section to find that out. (N0n3up (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    Can confirm N0n3up's statement. I attempted to remove the attack section, but he repeatedly reverted any edits I made, ignoring any comments or warnings that I made. Stating that I removed his section "without knowing what happened". Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 03:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He's playing coy. Just block him. --Tarage (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this relate to Ping? I am confused, even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BeenAroundAWhile It means apart of creating a section dedicated to personal attack, he pings me into the page. Ping is to mention the user in a way that notifies them, which made it a nuisance.
    And Seraphimblade and Lankiveil, although despite the warnings and ANIs and blocks, he still continued to make personal attacks as seen here and there referring me as "little lambikins" or something. Nevertheless, JuanRiley has had this kind of attitude all the time. Not only with me but other users such as Keith-264, Drmies, Hawkeye7 (whom he's commented against his admin candidacy) and others. And this is not the first time he's dragged me to this sort of things, he posted this a while ago in my talk page because I reverted one of his edits and made him take it to talk page. I personally believe it will take more to change Juan's actions. Yes, I've had tiffs in the past as all of us had but we change, but JuanRiley seems to be a different case. Not sure if he'll ever change. (N0n3up (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    • The response to the warning by Black Kite was the following series of edits: [36]. I therefore believe that this editor has no intent of stopping what he's doing even after being warned it's inappropriate, and issued a week block. If this happens again, they get longer, or they get indefinite. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said Seraphimblade. Personally I think an indefinite block should be the next move. And I've never considered that a user should be blocked for such an infinite time, but now I understand why admins have the option to block someone indefinitely. (N0n3up (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

    RfC Closure

    Hi. A user (@Sparkie82:) keeps undoing an RfC closure which is very disruptive and this is not the first time the user's been disruptive. Diffs of reverting RfC close: [37] [38] and [39]. If an admin could please reiterate to this user that the RfC has already been closed (and should remain closed) and/or block this user, that would be great. Thanks! Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously? Both of you should just drop the stick. Edit other topics. There's no need for this to escalate, especially since it's subject to ArbCom enforcement. Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @DatGuy: "If you continue to flog the poor old debate, if you try to reopen it" that's exactly what Sparkie82 has been doing by undoing the RfC close. The RfC closer said that we should have a compromise discussion in a separate section (which is what I started at the talk page) so reopening the RfC does not help. This is not about "winning" or "losing" this is about trying to find a constructive compromise. And for what it's worth, my compromise proposal is actually based on Sparkie82's compromise proposal! But If I'm not mistaken there's a process for having someone's RfC closure undone (I would know since it happened to me). First you go to the closer's talk page, then if that doesn't resolve anything you go to the Admin noticeboard. But what this issue is about is Sparkie82 constantly being disruptive and getting away with it. I'm trying to find a compromise that Sparkie82 and the users that support Sparkie82's viewpoint as well as users that are against his viewpoint can back so we can put this thing behind us once and for all. But the RfC discussion is over with and if we re-opened discussion there, there's a good chance a lot of people would not realize that discussion is continuing there. That discussion has already come to a halt. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sparkie82 is correct that a contentious RfC such as this should run for 30 days. However, I don't see anywhere that this was actually an WP:RFC. In that case, it should not be "closed" at all. Moreover, the "close" by MartinZ02 (a user with only 1,700 edits to his name) wasn't an objective close at all but a personal opinion, which should simply be added at the bottom to all of the other opinions in the discussion. I agree with Sparkie82 that however one looks at it, this is an inappropriate close. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      In what way was it not an objective close. —MartinZ02 (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You were WP:INVOLVED in the discussion and the article [40], [41]; it was far too soon; it was not a discussion that even warranted a close (it was not an RfC); there was no obvious consensus; you merely inserted your opinion ("Therefore I personally recommend that ...."); and most of all you do not have nearly enough experience on Wikipedia to be closing discussions. Softlavender (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced the discussion, which MartinZ02 had preemptively archived. MartinZ02, you have far too little experience to be closing discussions, much less ArbCom-enforcement-area discussions. Do not close this again. If you would like to add your suggestion to the bottom of the discussion, feel free. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Softlavender: Actually it was an RfC, but someone removed the RfC tags (which has now been restored by Sparkie82). In fact, it was probably accidentally removed when MartinZ02 closed the RfC. The reason why I and several other users wanted it to be closed early (which WP:RFC says we can do) is because the RfC was going days without any discussion going on. Furthermore, this whole discussion will be moot after election day so we wanted to resolve it way before then in order to prevent edit wars and in part so readers in 2020 would have a consensus to build off of. The 30 days is almost up so could you or someone here please close the RfC either now or when the 30 days is up? Thanks. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, the discussion section was started as an RfC (the tag was apparently inadvertently removed at some point during the time when the discussion was closed/reopened). I've just restored the RfC tag. The RfC was not optimally constructed or promoted. At the time the RfC was initiated, the question at dispute was whether or not to add write-in candidates to the infobox, not whether or not to remove them (see my first comment at the RfC for details), however, the wording of the RfC question was vague on the that point. The RfC (apparently) was initially only promoted to editors who favored adding write-ins, and all those first comments used the term "Keep" which gave the impression that write-ins were already in the infobox, which they were not. I look forward to continuing to work toward a compromise at the RfC (without the challenged edit(s) in the article until a compromise is reached). Also, several editors have subsequently launched a half-dozen or so separate discussions on the same topic and I'm not sure how to handle that as I've asked editors not to do that before at that talk page. To the admins here, should all those extra discussions be closed and editors referred to the initial RfC? Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfC is not very relevant now since the discussion only encompassed Castle and McMullin; other candidates were not added until just before the initial close of the discussion. There are now several other active proposals that consider the other candidates explicitly. I suggest that this RfC should be closed by a new admin sooner rather than later so that we can move on with more current discussion about the additional candidates. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the closing admin needs to carefully review the discussion, linked previous discussions and now parallel discussions spawned by the vague and premature closure of this RfC. Though I voiced support for closure when several days passed without comment, several comments followed, indicating that the discussion was still active. The closure needs to resolve a clear objective standard for inclusion that applies to all candidates in any election cycle. This is the opportunity to set a fair criteria that will carry over to next election cycle. Bcharles (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The overall problem is that nearly all the comments in this RfC were made when only Castle and McMullin were in contention, which makes it inadequate to resolve the issues with the other candidates that arose later. There are about five newer discussions about what to do about them, which all depend on the outcome of this one. Honestly, I think the version of the infobox on the page right now has a fair amount of support as a compromise. Any long-term solution will require a new RfC crafted for the issues discussed after this RfC was initially closed, which is why I suggest having a proper close to this RfC promptly. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility by Widr (Administrator)

    It is sad that I have to report today such an esteemed editor, but I feel it must be done. Yesterday I reverted an edit by Widr from August 2015 at Camdean. I posted on his talk page and he said that the offending text that I restored was a copyright violation [42]. I asked for an explanation and told him that I would report him to ANI if he restored the edit [43]. He then sais that "The "Education" section is a word-to-word copyvio, the rest is unsourced. Have fun at ANI. I have a feeling it wouldn't be your first visit there." While I sppreceate the explanation about the copyright violation, the rest is just taunting. I am requesting a review of his administrator rights. While it may make sense that this is not my first account, I read Wikipeidia: The missing manual before I started editing [44]. Thank you for your time. Moxhay (Talk * Contribs) 13:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Moxhay:. Three things. Firstly, welcome to wikipedia. Secondly, the text you inserted into the Camdean article is a word-for-word copyvio of this: so it has to be removed. As it has been (again). Repeated violations of Wikipedia's copyrigt policy generally results in adminstartive action, so be mindful. Thirdly, his 'taunting' was probably based on the fact that if you are, as you say, a new user, then you would be unliely to know of AN/I at all; but if, as you say, you have read it in the Missing Manual then you will be aware it is clear that this board is for 'only serious, repeat attacks'- which obviously does not apply here. I dare say his suggestion stemmed from such three-day old accounts making edits such as nominating articles for deletion, merging pages, and uploading non-free images with the correct rationale, all with the use of very exact Wiki mark-up and edit-summaries. FYI. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 14:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a troll? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats what I was thinking, or a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I had a look There is nothing Widr has done wrong, and I think this report should be closed as what he removed was PROVEN to be a copyvio by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Class455 (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dennis Brown: Took too long over my post  :) Muffled Pocketed 14:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As a minor aside, I will mention that it would be a very good idea, going forward, for Widr to use a clear and specific edit summary if s/he removes any copyvios from articles going forward. Widr's edit to remove the original copyvio just uses the very vague-bordering-on-misleading summary "(trim)", which really doesn't explain the rationale behind the edit. It doesn't have to be long and wordy; a simple "removed copyvio" or even just "copyvio" would avoid confusion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, while it's great when people are hunting copyvios, remember that they are a serious thing but other editors aren't magic. Unless they're the ones who added the copyvio, the often aren't going to be able to know something was a copyvio and so should never be re-added if they edit summary doesn't say so and will instead assume such changes are subject to normally editing. Sometimes it could even be months or years later. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is almost 100% a troll, and likely a block evader of some sort as well. Actually, it seems like this user is interested in editing articles related to the U.S. state of Maine. I have a recollection of Widr blocking some users/IP's that had made serial attacks to Maine related articles in the recent past. This is just one of many of them, (I know there's more, but couldn't find them) but maybe this isn't related at all, I dunno... Since this user is very new, Widr's comment, Have fun at ANI. I have a feeling it wouldn't be your first visit there. is totally justified, and I agree with him that they have probably been here before... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello IP! Do you believe this warrants a SPI? Dat GuyTalkContribs 00:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @DatGuy: Possibly, but I don't know who the master account would be if a SPI were to be made for this. But it's pretty obvious, and what Widr was most likely getting at here, is that this user has probably known the ins and outs of Wikipedia for much longer than from the duration from when their account was created to now, and how this user even knows what ANI is... I can sense a BOOMERANG coming straight for us...! 2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IPs adding sockpuppet templates and personal attacks

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

    Hello.
    2601:5C2:201:9CD:19D4:D557:4381:A5CC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is actually an ex-sockpuppet, IP hopper and stalker. IP geolocation analysis indicates he is the same person responsible for attempting to vandalize Microsoft Office article. ([45], [46], [47]) His target is exclusively me. I can give you more of his IP addresses but I don't think it is very relevant here. The point is: What he is reverting from List of Microsoft codenames is good material.
    I don't know anything about 37.255.97.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) except his modus operandi is indefensible.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    139.195.2.121

    Appears to be withdrawn by the nominator, and this is a content dispute in any case. ~ Rob13Talk 07:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    It appears the user has stopped for now. I'll keep a watch on the pages however. Feinoha Talk 02:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible misuse of tools by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

    Future Perfect acted appropriately per strong concensus here. WP:STICK should be read as needed. Closing before the aboriginal weapons get tossed (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    What specific Administrative action are you requesting? Doug Weller talk 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A reversion of the change back to to the status quo. StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I don't see anything about this that warrants administrative action in the slightest, much less a 3-wikiproject RFC procedure. A little perspective, please: it's a formatting change on a template, not regicide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a major formatting change affecting thousands of articles - if it's merely a lack of significant discussion that is getting in the way of the proposed change, shouldn't there be appropriate recruitment? And isn't that what the projects are for? StAnselm (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Skimming infobox talk suggests the issue concerns whether links to predecessor/successor articles use icons or text. The recent edit changed the template to use text such as Sussex rather than a flag (or other icon if no flag is applicable). Is that correct? If so, the change looks highly desirable. At any rate, to show misuse of tools there would need to be a link to a discussion showing a clear consensus that icons are preferred and that the edit disregarded that consensus. The second of the here links in the OP shows what appears to be a serious problem with the old template and fixing that problem is highly desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the bar here is really much higher as the relevant guideline says really clearly. One could make an IAR argument (which is what you are doing by saying that it seems desirable) but WP:TPE is pretty clear here and that's the standard for what's acceptable in this situation, not BRD. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not relying on IAR, I'm asserting (in my "second of the here" above) that there was a real problem, and the edit has fixed it. I'm using "appears" because I haven't studied the problem and it's conceivable that someone can show that it is great to have infoboxes with mysterious empty boxes, although they did not do that in the linked discussion. I know ANI is supposed to ignore content and enforce the rulebook, but do you have an opinion on the benefits of icons vs. text? What if there is no suitable icon? What if very few readers can identify the icon? Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The change was not just about removing the flags - it also involved moving the names to the bottom of the template. In any case, there may well have been a problem with the old template (though if so, it was a "problem" that had been around for years), but there are, I think, several different ways of fixing it. However, that is not really a discussion for this page. StAnselm (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with StAnselm here. There was no consensus for this change and it is exactly what WP:TPE says not to do. A) It is something that requires "substantial discussion" and B) the tools were used to get an upper hand in an editing dispute. The change should be reverted and discussed. As far as I can tell, the problem that this fixes has been around for a while and there was no especially pressing reason to ignore policy. Hobit (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The complaint and responses are excessively bureaucratic if you remember how TPE came into existence in the first place. This wasn't the type of edit that should have needed approval, if it weren't for the protection getting in the way. Could someone with the tool please revert the edit per the normal and (in this instance) more appropriate WP:BRD? Then there can be a talkpage discussion about whether to reinstate the change.

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

    IP, who is "we"? You started editing one day ago. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think it's incorrect to characterize this as a "misuse of tools" or even a "possible misuse of tools". It's also patently incorrect to continuously state that "only administrators" can edit the template: any WP:Template editor can edit the template. Fut. Perf carefully explained his rationale and linked to previous discussions [50] before making the change [51]. He also advised StAnselm where to find other competent template editors [52]. StAnselm, create an RfC if you wish, but this ANI filing smacks of disgruntled sour-grapes forum-shopping, and this content dispute should not be here. I recommend closing this thread with no action. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said anything about "only administrators" can edit the template? Quite clearly this is about the template editor user right, which is a right that admins have, but other editors have it too. But both admins and non-admins are required to use the right in like with WP:TPE. This thread is not about the content dispute - it is about the procedural issue. And indeed, I was not coming here for advice on how to structure the template (the content issue), but to request the initial "bold" edit be reverted (the procedural issue). StAnselm (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "I can't do it since I'm not an admin", "it has a change that has been without a proper consensus, and cannot be reverted by non-admins". ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify: there was no misuse of process here. WP:TPE doesn't demand a fully-formed multi-party consensus prior to editing; it explicitly allows to propose an edit and then go ahead if no objections are raised "after a few days". This edit was effectively proposed half a year ago [53], and no objections were raised ever since. It is true that I didn't judge it necessary to wait again when I (re-)proposed this step as a concrete implementation this time – but even if I had, there were no objections forthcoming, so I would have ended up making the edit all the same, if a few days later. The first objection to the edit only came two weeks after my proposal, the first reasoned objection another week later, and both these objections would not have come at all if I had waited on (because the users in question never saw the discussion but were only alerted to it after seeing the change in effect). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting from self-admitted harassment sock removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes two (apparently) IPs here unwilling to use their accounts. Come on folks, sniping from the peanut gallery doesn't carry much weight. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I see you had an opportunity to deal with the socks, could you also answer my question? Hobit (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is a level of changes that requires "several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal" but this change was more significant than that - and so it needed substantial discussion. StAnselm (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: To StAnselm and Hobit: As of now I note more editors in favor of the change that Fut. Perf made than against it (I'm counting editors in this thread and on the talk page and also myself, since in the example provided I think his change is superior, and as Johnuniq notes it obviates empty boxes). In the end, it's highly unlikely that any admin or template editor is going to revert Fut. Perf's change without discussion. So in the end, this is nothing more than a content dispute, and if this thread and the example are any indication, one that will end up in favor of Fut. Perf's change. I recommend that no more time be wasted on this on ANI. If an RfC is desired, please institute that. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue at hand is that advanced permissions were used inappropriately and when question the edit wasn't undone. In fact, you just listed all the problems _with_ this edit.
        • "So in the end, this is nothing more than a content dispute" that's exactly right. And it's an admin using a permission bundled with the being an admin to win a content dispute.
        • "In the end, it's highly unlikely that any admin or template editor is going to revert Fut. Perf's change without discussion." Exactly. That's why the discussion is supposed to happen first.
    Yes, this may well be the right place to end up. But advanced permissions should not be used to win a content dispute, and that's exactly what has happened here IMO. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Once again, Softlavender, this discussion here is not about whether Future Perfect at Sunrise's version is superior (though I don't think it is) but the way in which that version was/should be established. StAnselm (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Future Perfect at Sunrise edit, good call, good edit. I also support closing this thread. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer we wait to close this to A) give FPaS a chance to respond to my question and B) to see if pinging the TPE talk page draws anyone. 48 should be enough for both I'd think. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    StAnselm, if you want to start an RFC at Template talk:Infobox_former_country, you might as well go ahead and do it without any more waiting. You could also put a {{editprotected}} template there and ask for a revert while the RFC proceeds, though that seems a bit pointy to me by now. It doesn't look like anyone here at ANI is going to revert it. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Future Perfect at Sunrise posted on the talk page at 08:52, 7 October 2016, they changed the template at 09:41, October 7, 2016‎. StAnselm responded at 01:24, 21 October 2016. Even if they had waited a few days as Wikipedia:Template editor#When to seek discussion for template changes suggests, instead of an hour, they still could have implemented the changes. However, Wikipedia:Template editor#Editing disputes gives guidance in regard to these type of situations. Normally, StAnselm would be able to revert the change, but the templates are protected to prevent widespread displays of vandalism. The template editor user right or administrator user right should never be used to gain an upper hand in editing disputes, and they don't give those with them a special authority to unilaterally implement things, rather the technical ability to do so when the community approves it. Whether or not the changes were great, poor, or somewhere in-between, does not matter, we operate on consenus here at Wikipedia. The response by StAnselm was timely enough that a status quo ante should be implemented (i.e. the change should be reverted) until a consensus is established. I don't consider it a misuse of the tools by Future Perfect at Sunrise, but a unilateral change should be reverted if it proves not to be uncontroversial, especially with this timeframe.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh wow, I didn't catch the part earlier where StAnselm didn't complain about the edit til 2 weeks after it happened. And the change seems to have reasonable support, at least here on ANI. So I'd say if StAnselm still has a problem with it, open an RFC on the template talk page or put up a change request (editprotected) or other proposal about some kind of compromise. There's really nothing for ANI to do so I'd say close with no action. 2 weeks in this situation is long enough to have missed the boat for BRD. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as stated above, per WP:TPE the usual BRD system does not apply. In fact, I went to the page when I saw the template had changed on a couple of pages I'm familiar with. I went there to read the discussion about why it had been changed, expecting to see a significant discussion, only to discover that it had been done (virtually) unilaterally. StAnselm (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Note to StAnselm and Hobit: Both of you appear to erroneously believe that, as Hobit puts it above, "it's an admin using a permission bundled with the being an admin to win a content dispute." There is absolutely no evidence for that. Fut Perf made a well-explained change based on prior requests/discussions that he linked to. When his change was questioned two to three weeks later he suggested multiple times to involve other template editors and/or other admins [54], [55], [56]. There is absolutely no evidence that Fut. Perf made his change in order to preempt discussion or prevail over anybody else. Discussion had already occurred; he made the change; he then gave clear instructions of how to adjudicate the matter when questioned. Since it is obvious the change is preferred by a majority of editors, this ANI thread has become unnecessary. Please drop the stick and stop the time-waste here, as ANI is no longer the proper venue for this. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you agree this is a content dispute--you described it as one above. Those objecting to the changes can't revert because doing so involves advanced permissions. There had been a discussion on this same topic and there was no consensus to make the change. Once objections were raised and it wasn't reverted, there was an editor winning a content dispute due to advanced permissions. So yes, I think I've described the situation correctly.
    The way Wikipedia's advanced permissions work, in theory (policy) as well as mostly in practice, is that advanced permissions should not be used to win a content dispute. That is what is clearly happening here as we have an editor who objects and would have reverted if they could. And there wasn't anything close to the consensus policy asks ("substantial discussion" is the exact wording) for before making that change. Was it a reasonable BOLD edit? It wasn't within policy as I read it, but it also wasn't unreasonable in my opinion (BRD, IAR, etc.). But once someone objected, the change needs to be reverted and discussed. It's a simple and reasonable request that anyone with the rights to edit the template could have forced by simply reverting. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to read the links I provided: [57], [58], [59]. It would have been adverse for Wikipedia for FP to revert his own change (as he explained on the talk page [60], [61]), so he gave ample instructions three times on how to get the change reverted if a revert was desired. There is no point in reverting against the current WP:CONSENSUS -- do you agree? So what exactly do you want here? A de-sysop? That's not going to happen. For FP to say his change was out-of-process? That's not going to happen, and he has stated why several times [62], [63], [64]. For a consensus judgment that FP did a bad thing or violated a policy? That's not going to happen. For the change to be reverted? That's not going to happen. Thus this ANI thread, which was started in bad faith in the first place, is by now a waste of everyone's time. It has become WP:POINTY in the extreme. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So Hobit has taken to reverting over the closure of this thread now [65], saying there is some open question he asked me. Hmm, yes, apparently there is, somewhere further up, something about the legalistic interpretation of some verbiage at WP:TPE. I don't find that question very interesting, and it's pretty much moot at this point (when a substantial consensus for the edit in question has effectively formed through endorsements by several users here). Does anybody else besides Hobit think that question still needs an answer? If not, I rather think I'm going to ignore it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It's asking you a question about the heart of the matter. Admins are really supposed to respond to questions about their tool use even if they don't find it interesting. Hobit (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This section shows significant support for the change by FPaS, and very little objection to the procedure used. That means it is StAnselm and Hobit versus the community, not versus one admin. How about responding to my comment at 06:59, 30 October 2016 above? Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. You already covered it in the links I provided Hobit, who is exhibiting a classic case of WP:IDHT (and IDIDNTREADTHAT), above: [66], [67], [68]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:PsychopathicAssassin

    I've warned the user. If they continue edit warring, you can report this at WP:AN3. ~ Rob13Talk 08:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    As a miscellaneous point, FWIW, his user page has a user box that claims to have made over 500,000 edits to Wikipedia. Not under this I.D., at least. Hyperbole seems to be his forte. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't be surpised, there's something wrong.. now in his Talk page he says I "hate the subject". The article is anything but neutral, don't want to enter WP:3RR. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello71 3RR block review

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

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

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

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

    Note: Also see related comments by 2601:1c0:4401:f360:e036:ce49:fd17:5346 and related comments by MarnetteD and Ritchie333. I'd like to highlight specifically Ritchie333's wording here of "I don't really feel that much remorse in knocking those editors down a peg or two" and "If I catch you violating 3RR again, the next block will be for a week.", which sound very much like WP:BATTLE/WP:WIN to me. ⁓ Hello71 20:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to highlight Ritchie333's use of the phrase "if he could have seen it coming, he would have behaved in a way that wouldn't have made a block necessary", which would appear to contradict his extended block reason that I could have seen it coming. ⁓ Hello71 20:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, you were edit warring since there was no obvious vandalism. The IP was also edit warring. In my opinion, you should not have been blocked without a warning and I feel pretty strongly about that. However, Ritchie333 operated well within the boundaries of reasonable admin judgement in my opinion. In the future, withdraw before you reach four reverts (or sooner) and use other avenues to report the disruption (ANI, AIV or wait for another editor to take care of it). Ritchie333's comments on his own talk page are slightly chilling, but I guess "walk a mile in his shoes" applies.- MrX 23:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I declined Hello71's unblock request and might thus be considered somewhat involved. Still, my opinion on the questions, in order:
    1. I do not see how reverting five times within ten minutes at Template:Stephen Spielberg can be considered anything but edit warring. In my opinion, none of the valid exceptions apply.
    2. The IP editor was also edit warring (and was also blocked by Ritchie333).
    3. You mean a warning like this one? Consider the warning you gave the IP editor a warning you received; you were well aware of the inappropriateness of edit warring.
    4. Since the IP had already reverted another editor on the template (who stopped at two reverts), you could have reported them at WP:AN/3RR and waited for them to be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR yourself. Explaining on the talk page why those dates are considered useful would likely also have helped (if only to show that you aren't the one who blindly reverts without engaging in a discussion).
    5. There seems to be some agreement that the edits you rolled back were not obvious vandalism. I do not see what other criterion for use of rollback applies.
    As a personal aside, I'd say the most important questions here are 4. and 5. (thanks for asking those) - what to take away from this incident and how to avoid that it happens again. Unfortunately, sometimes we have to jump through hoops and go to lengths that feel bothersome when we feel we are so obviously right, but there are times when that's necessary. Happened to me, too, time and again. Huon (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I agree that the AN3RR page is more appropriate for this. I was not aware that such a space existed, and will use it in future. However, while I agree that in general, more detail is helpful when it comes to AIV, AN, etc, that needs to be balanced with the realities of counter-vandalism: the limited time means that it is unrealistic to issue a blanket statement that all such reports must come with excruciating detail. Instead, in my opinion, it is far more reasonable to say something like "reports may be declined without further reason if the case appears unclear to an administrator and the details given are insufficient" or something along those lines.
    With regards to the use of a report in lieu of instead of in addition to reverting, see my re-reply to question 1 above.

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

    My argument previously was that both the "obvious vandalism" and "widespread unhelpful edits" criteria apply, since here we are discussing rollback and not 3RR. If we assume that the former criterion, if not necessarily inapplicable, has no consensus to be applied in this case, the latter would appear to apply nonetheless. Specifically, the edits in question are "widespread", check, "misguided", optimistic check, and "unhelpful", probably-check. The question in this case is what exactly "[supplying] an explanation in an appropriate location" means. I believe that an edit summary (if by another user) and user talk warning constitute "an explanation", particularly given that it is well-settled (I hope) that rollback may be used against non-vandalism edits such as inappropriate adding of external links with only a user talk warning, and that it would render the rollback tool utterly useless in such cases of "widespread unhelpful edits" if an edit summary was required on every page. ⁓ Hello71 02:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC) edited 03:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you find yourself having to write this much text defending your actions, you probably stepped over a line somewhere. But to be specific, I'm not thrilled with the block, but you were certainly edit warring and violated 3RR. It simply wasn't vandalism or even (to my untrained eye) clearly a bad edit by the IP. Or so goes my non-admin opinion on the matter. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Here's the thing, Hello71: The proper procedure when an IP is repeatedly disrupting an article or template without talk-page discussion is to request semi-protection of the page at WP:RFPP (and/or warn them on their talk page to stop edit-warring, noting that they could be blocked if they persist, and if they do persist after that then report them at WP:ANEW). The proper procedure is never to edit-war. Moreover, the edits on that template were decidedly not WP:VANDALISM, they were simply a difference of opinion. If you do not know what WP:VANDALISM is, please learn it now before proceeding to edit Wikipedia further. Although I believe that Ritchie should have talk-page warned you and given you a chance to desist before he blocked you (and I recommend that he always do that going forward), I endorse the block and I endorse the declines of the unblock requests. A further lesson to take away from this experience is that in unblock requests you need to state that you understand how you violated the relevant policy or guideline, and you need to completely avoid pointing fingers at others. I realize this is a lot of information to take in, but these three or four standard rules of thumb are basic Wikipedia protocols. Please take careful heed of them. Lastly, please initiate discussion on the talk-page of an article or template instead of blindly re-reverting non-vandalism edits. Please read WP:BRD if you do not understand this principle. I personally recommend that you at least temporarily stop using Huggle and other automated or semi-automated tools, and do some actual content-related edits on Wikipedia (always with clear edit summaries that describe exactly what you did and why). Right now you are a hammer and everything looks like a nail, and that skews your viewpoint of what editing should consist of and how it should be done. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was asked by Hello71 to weigh in on the discussion as I may have been involved. Since I undid two or three of the Ip edits and I`m aware of the situation, here it is: first of all "The edits made by 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F (talk) didnot meet WP:PERFNAV and disclosed edit war". But the comment by MrX was spot-on. I think what everybody is trying to say is that You should have demonstrated good faith (atleast once) than just reverting the edits repeatedly despite being incorrect edits, they are not obvious vandalized edits. Even though you did, you should have left a message like 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) did than using twinkle (I suppose). Even though you didn`t, you should have reported them at WP:ANEW (just like User:Haploidavey (talk) did (same case, checkout history of Ethiopia)) or could have requested semi-protection of the page or template. May be if you have done atleast one of the above things you might not have been blocked. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Just to pick up on one point, I do normally try and steer people away from blocks and normally turn a blind eye to 3RR if it's one off; however I noticed this editor had previously been warned not to revert good faith edits from IPs as vandalism (here), and I also consciously did not warn for the reasons Huon said. If you aren't prepared to take responsibility for what Twinkle and Huggle writes on user talk pages, do not use it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree in this case that I ought to have watched the user talk page and responded to that comment. I have since rectified that by apologizing to the user in question, enabling the "Add user talk page to watchlist when notifying" option in Twinkle and since a similar option does not appear to exist in Huggle, I have filed a Huggle bug for adding one. That said, however, I vehemently disagree that what happened on that talk page could be described as "being warned", which implies a number of things that I don't think are necessarily true here. ⁓ Hello71 13:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    • Wow. Just wow. Are you ever going to drop the stick here? You egregiously edit-warred (making 5 reverts in ten minutes, a clear violation of WP:3RR), over edits that were not even remotely vandalism, and you got blocked for 24 hours. End of story. Not one person on this thread disagrees with that. Your continued wikilawyering and self-justification is a very very bad sign -- a sign of WP:IDHT. If you don't take in the fact that it was you who erred and nobody else, I think a WP:BOOMERANG may be headed your way. You've already spread your complaining over at least two pages and tens of thousands of bytes. Please stop. Softlavender (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While we are discussing policy, there is a policy that when you discuss someone and/or their editing history here at ANI, you must explicitly notify them that you are doing so (see the rather large notice at the top of the page). When were you planning to get around to notifying me that you are discussing my recent edits here, apparently for illustrative purposes but decrying what you see as a violation of policy? General Ization Talk 14:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I only reverted this page twice. Had I reverted more than three times, I believe I would have been exempt from 3RR per WP:3RRNO #3. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    MRD2014, there's no reason whatsoever that either you, or RickinBaltimore, or General Ization should be dragged into this discussion. None of you have made a single edit to Template:Steven_Spielberg: [69], [70], [71]. The OP's desperation to throw anyone else under the bus except themselves, and for absolutely nonsensical reasons, causes me to believe they lack the competence to edit Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to chime in here too. I was surprised to see my name come up, when I have generally no horse in this race. As Softlavender said, I've never touched the page in question in my 10 years of editing here. Yes I have used the WP:DENY in an edit summary to remove an IP's comments, because it was warranted. I was reverting the edit of a known banned editor who uses various IP's to get around their ban, and this was simply to notify that this was an editor doing such a thing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, since you are claiming I committed a violation of "the letter of 3RR," perhaps you should re-read WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page – whether involving the same or different material – within a 24-hour period" (followed by various exceptions to that rule, which I claim apply in the case of my edits but will not go into here, since others point out they are irrelevant to your case). Though not a hard upper or lower limit to identify edit-warring behavior, you seem to think that my 3 reverts violate that guidance simply because there were three. Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "more than three"? General Ization Talk 19:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, why is Hello71 editing old arbitration cases? I thought only arbs and clarks were supposed to do that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 4:32 pm, Today (UTC−4)
    I am unaware of any policy stating that that is not permitted, and believe that in that regard, arbitration case pages are subject only to the standard talk page rules, that editors should not change other people's comments (which can reasonably be extended to comments which have been agreed on by a committee), not that the page in general may not be changed. Regardless, I am unsure how this relates to the present discussion. ⁓ Hello71 20:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was intended to show that if we ignore the text of WP:EW and focus only on the "three" part, then it is a violation. It was my understanding that three was a violation. I now understand that that is not correct. ⁓ Hello71 20:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that the reverts do not violate WP:EW. ⁓ Hello71 21:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'm a bit late here, but I was notified of this ANI thread from one of my older IP addresses, so I only just now noticed it. Anyway, I would like to point out something a bit odd here. After you responded to Ritchie333's comment above (not the one about the ArbCom edits, but the one before that), it seemed like you had understood what you did was wrong by saying, "I ought to have watched the user talk page and responded to that comment...", and it seemed like things were moving in the right direction for all parties involved. But now you have violated WP:NOTTHEM (although this is not an unblock request), in making examples of previous incidents, such as "That seems to me like a good start, but I'd still like to dispute the former point with an example right from this page's recent history", in which you proceed to find/search for other incidents in which long-standing editors/vandalism fighters have violated 3RR in similar situations as this current one, while linking a previous ANI thread in trying to relate it to this discussion. That is not acceptable. Period. You did not need to involve other users into this just because you saw them not getting blocked for 3RR at a different point in time. This ANI thread is supposed to be about you, your actions, and how to rectify such problems from occurring in the distant future. There is absolutely no reason at all why you should get General Ization, RickinBaltimore and MRD2014 involved here, not to also mention the fact that you need to notify them of the ANI thread even if you do talk about them at all. As Softlavender has pointed out; you really need to drop the stick here, and while I do think that Ritchie333's block may have been a bit hasty, and once I saw that you reported the initial IP to WP:AIV and then later saw that you had been blocked for 3RR as per boomerang, I had come to defend you because I thought that the block on you was a bit harsh, especially when you were edit warring with an IP that was block evading. But now, you are unblocked, and it would be best to just move on from here on out. While I think it is good that you are trying to prevent the situation from happening/occurring again by changing your Twinkle and Huggle settings/preferences (though, I personally have no experience with these automated reverting tools), the fact that you are trying to compare this situation to other incidents of edit warring is not going to help you, or anyone else involved here at all...
    In siding with you though, Hello71, you should have technically been exempted from the block as per WP:3RRNO (bullet point #3), since the IP involved was block evading. Unfortunately, I'm assuming that Ritchie333 had no idea that this IP was block evading... BTW, I hope that you don't see my little rant above as being too harsh or critical towards you, but I'm merely just pointing out what had happened, and explaining to you why it shouldn't have happened, that's all. :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again for your comments. I do not feel that WP:NOTTHEM applies: "Do not complain about other people": I am not complaining about those edits, as I am claiming that the edits mentioned are not edit warring, not that they are and everyone should be blocked. The reason why I am bringing them up is because I am trying to understand exactly why the edits that I reverted are apparently not considered vandalism, and that the edits that General Ization reverted are. It is also possible that the latter is entirely wrong, and that General Ization's behavior was also inappropriate. To repeat, I am not saying that I believe he was edit warring, but saying that that would be one explanation of the behavior I have seen. Another suitable example might be Callmemirela's recent edits also on this page, since he did five de facto reverts (i.e. not including the temporary and self-revert) nearly in a row (the same number that I did), also not prima facie vandalism, against an IP-hopping vandal, etc. Again, I firmly believe none of these examples constitute edit warring, let alone warrant blocking, but am willing to be shown otherwise with references to WP:VANDALISM, RFCs, etc. Otherwise, I am still unclear if they do not then why mine do. ⁓ Hello71 00:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you haven't notified anybody of who you are talking about in your ANI thread. This is getting repetitive and frankly annoying. I found out that I was mentioned through diffs. I will again repeat what everybody has said from now and per the orange box on top of the editing box, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." The fact that you are being repeated this once more makes me think competence issues.
    Please refer to me as a she. I am a girl. Mirela is a female Croatian name of the French name Mireille with ties to Spanish, Italian and other languages. If you are unsure of an editor's gender, please check their user page and if it doesn't indicate their gender then he/she.
    Now, back to what you are referring to. Yes, I reverted edits from an IP just recently and a few today. Per WP:NOT3RR, I am exempt from engaging in 3RR because the user was evading blocks by using different IPs. See exemption #3: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users."
    I am not going to specifically comment on your ANI thread as I have no interest and everybody has already said what I was thinking, which you are clearly ignoring. I am going to echo what Softlavender has said. Drop the stick already. This constant bringing up uninvolved users into your ANI thread for no reason is getting tendentious and bothersome. You are nearing a boomerang being thrown on your side. This ANI thread is about your conduct, not other users. If you want complain about other users' conducts, create a new section. You wanted advice, and you have it. Now stop this nonsense. I am sensing WP:CIR and WP:IDHT issues. If that's the way you want to act, then go ahead but don't drag me into something I have no business in. Are we clear? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. As I believe I have made clear, I am not discussing any specific editor's behavior except mine, 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:9F's, and tangentially Ritchie333's. I am pointing to edits to use as references, but not "posting a grievance about a user".
    2. Sorry, I had in fact inferred female gender from your user name, but wanted to check, and for some reason failed to read the navigation popups symbol properly (stupid tiny font size on this computer). My apologies for that.
    3. Yes, I agree, and that is one of my primary arguments here.
    4. Nowhere did I say that I was complaining about your behavior, or that you had to comment at all. On the contrary, I claimed at least twice that I believe you did nothing wrong in those reverts. Merely mentioning a user does not mean I am complaining about their behavior or soliciting their input. ⁓ Hello71 02:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The rule is very simple: when you mention another editor here at ANI, you must notify them that you are doing so. If you cannot grasp the reasons for that policy, then I join others here who suggest that competence may be an issue. And I encourage an admin to bring this discussion, which very clearly seems to be accomplishing nothing other than annoying other, uninvolved editors (myself included), to a close. General Ization Talk 02:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    100% Agree with General Ization. This is going absolutely nowhere, and there is clearly no point in discussing this at ANI. Hello71, and others, including myself as well, if we all want to discuss the issues of WP:EW, WP:3RR and/or WP:3RRNO, then it be best to discuss this at the talkpages of those Wikipedia guidelines, as this way of discussing it here at ANI is clearly not working at all. Also, If any editor is mentioned within an ANI thread at all, no matter in what context that they are being discussed in, they must be notified of the discussion talking place at all times (yes, even if they are pinged through linking/mentioning the user at all). 2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Insults, trolling, and vandalism by User:74tyhegf

    74tyhegf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), accompanying their violation 1RR discretionary sanctions at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016,[72][73] began issuing personal insults ("clinton whipping boy",[74],"put up or shut up")[75], and then began vandalizing ("Hillary Clinton stooge")[76] and trolling ("that guy is obviously a stooge employed by clinton")[77] other user and user talk pages. I'm not sure whether the editor received warning of the discretionary sanctions but they have acknowledged warnings from editors not to edit war[78] or insult others.[79] I also haven't looked into their history to know whether this is a pattern. But editing user pages to call people stooges is pretty deliberate bad faith behavior, warned or not. Thanks for any help, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The constant page blanking of the editors talk page, and the comments there to date, suggest no understanding of WP:AGF
    Leaving user page edits that are WP:PA, and close to incoherent unsigned comments on talk pages [80]
    the diffs offered by Wikidemon speak for themselves - suggest sanction, as further warnings in all likelihood would get blanked as well JarrahTree 02:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I left the discretionary sanctions warning for the American politics topic area. ~ Rob13Talk 04:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Went to 4RR on Australian Greens (albeit in 27 hours, not 24).[81][82][83][84] and left a tit-for-tat cut-and-paste edit warring notice[85] nine minutes after the person warned against edit warring.[86] — and after being notified of this discussion, to which the editor has not responded. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support indef. This editor, in his brief time at Wikipedia, appears to do nothing but add negative material about left-wing subjects and remove negative material about right-wing subjects. Some of these actions are supportable in isolation, but he's here to push a POV, not help build an encyclopedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass unsourced BLP creation by AvonB221

    Blocked. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    He has been blocked-I'm not sure if all of those are BLP's either though-some of those pages linked to a page of rugby players and he added some that said they played over 50 years ago, so they may or may not be alive. Either way it was way too much. They all said the same thing also. Wgolf (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Eodcarl

    User indef blocked, and talk-page access removed. If the user harasses anyone via email, please let Doug Weller know, per his request. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Imho, what he stated at Talk:Jesus was because he is a true believer in biblical inerrancy and cannot accept that some Christians do not consider the Bible infallible. Nor does he accept that non-Christian scholars have the right to study Jesus and the Bible, or that non-Christian editors have a right to edit Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, Eodcarl is not done. [88][89]. General Ization Talk 04:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullies prove my point. Eodcarl (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good lord the arguments he is making on the Jesus talk page. No true Scotsman fallacy anyone? --Tarage (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah okay he's still edit warring. Someone needs to put a stop to this. --Tarage (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no strong opinion here (and should be in bed). We've had a discussion at Talk:Nat Turner and I have been a bit too long winded. I can't say whether or not Eodcarl's editing has been constructive, although we've reverted each other there, maybe more than should have been done. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong words at Talk:Jesus: "moron", "garbage", claims that most US universities are corrupted by "false teachings". Probably WP:NOTHERE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. But such language is generally permitted on talk pages, and - not being directed at editors - is not considered a personal attack (rightly or wrongly). Indeed, editors are welcome to believe Ehrman is a moron just as they are welcome to believe he is not a moron. Editors are welcome to believe in inerrancy just as they are welcome to believe the Bible contains mistakes. StAnselm (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she is certainly failing to provide the sources to support his/her edits or to defend them in a rational way and blanking the initial notice on this page would seem actionable. However, I would advise people to be careful about triggering the 3-revert rule on themselves. A totally different world view. --Erp (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He is also refusing to discuss his edits over on Saint Peter. I'll admit I just reverted him a third time, but I frankly have no idea what else I'm supposed to do if the guy is unwilling to discuss things before he continues to edit.Farsight001 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe his intention is to bait regulars into getting themselves blocked. If I am not mistaken, he could be a sockpuppet of Til Eulenspiegel: he is an uncompromising biblical literalist and has a disruptive intervention in articles about African-Americans. Anyway, he is edit warring in several articles at the same time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to imagine a more clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE. Where the content is concerned, he doesn't seem to have the slightest concern for this project's purpose, nor it's policies; he is rather here to push an extreme POV born of his religious beliefs because "One must have the Holy Spirit to understand scripture", "It is not possible to know Jesus without being a Christian" and "it is impossible to be a Christian and say God's word has errors". Thus, in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, he is willing to engage in extensive edit warring, subversion of process, personal attacks on other editors, vocal animosity towards atheists and non-Christians anywhere near the topic of Christianity and numerous other forms of disruptive editing.
    The red flag that set me to looking into his history here was the fact that he attempted to remove this thread by blanking it from ANI. Having since spent the last hour and a half checking through his recent edits, I am gobsmacked that he has gone as long as he has without being restrained. This is not your average grey-area case of disruption: this editor has blatantly stated that he has no interest in building the encyclopedia, beyond making it conform to his brand of religious dogma, and that he has no interest in applying (or even attempting to understand) how policy or community consensus operate on this project. I provide my absolute support for an indefinite block as the only measure that seems viable in containing this rampage of edit warring, disruption and incivility, conducted for the purpose of a religious fervor that seems unlikely to change; this user is not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia--he's here to preach the gospel, literally. Snow let's rap 06:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC): A necessary intermediate measure to stop the edit warring, no doubt--but given the user's absolutist religious views, idiosyncratic views on race and nationality, hostility towards conflicting perspectives, animosity towards non-Christians working in Christian topic areas, and general lack of respect for others or for the processes of this project, where they get in the way of his ideology, can we have any reasonable expectation that the behaviour will reform after the block? I'm generally the party arguing for a great deal of leeway, but I think in this case it is only reasonable to conclude that we are holding open the door for more disruption and massive incivility if we don't adopt an indef here. Snow let's rap 07:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have the patience of a St. EEng 09:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef. I began typing intending to endorse a "let the block expire and see if they can find something uncontroversial to work on" position, but having looked more closely at the history, and threads like this, this, this and this, it's clear that this is someone with an irredeemable "my personal opinions are undisputable truth" mindset, whatever the topic. Much as I dislike de facto bans on long-term editors, I have no confidence that this editor won't immediately start picking fights again as soon as the block expires, and the potential chilling effect that has on other editors in my view outweighs any potential benefits of allowing Eodcarl to continue to edit. ‑ Iridescent 09:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would certainly have imposed an indef block myself after examining Eodcarl's behaviour. I see no sign of Eodcarl wanting to be a constructive contributor to an encyclopedia, and every sign of uncompromising literalist religious POV-pushing. In fact, I see uncompromising POV-editing on non-religious topics too - Eodcarl's edit warring on Mizzou Arena has been going on since 2014. The extreme viewpoint shown at Talk:Jesus, for example, clearly indicates no possibility of getting a change of approach here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef Eodcarl hadn't ventured far from Kansas/Missouri topics before now (especially as mentioned above, Mizzou Arena, where they wanted to hide the arena's contentious early naming history out of some zealous need to keep the Missouri Tigers history pure here while making the Kansas Jayhawks look worse than the Black Sox), but it's clear that any suggestions to tone down his editing, no matter how civil and kind they are, will be called "bullying" and dismissed; I ventured into this thinking it would be more arena inaneness and an ANI trip for another 48h block, but once I saw what was being done to Nat Turner's article it was beyond even that; denying a person's national heritage, especially that of an 1800's slave who just wanted to be free to be an American in several cases here, is something that is not needed here at all.
    The religious article contribs were contentious and blockable just on the face alone (not my usual topic area, thus the deference to others), but wandering into a topic like African American personhood and denying as such throughout several attempts at talk page wars was beyond the pale for me, thus the call to ANI. Equally, the edits by 68.104.85.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to Nat Turner before tonight seem to be ringing pattern bells to them, along with earlier contribs involving congressional districts where Native American figures were taken out without comment...and finally this this attack heading against Malik Shabazz on Talk:Treatment of slaves in the United States in mid-July. If the IP connects, we absolutely do not need this user as a contributor. Nate • (chatter) 09:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef. Overdue. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef Editing on WP is through compromise and consensus not drawing lines in the sand. Blackmane (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef And nothing of value was lost. --Tarage (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and conscience however the disruptive closed minded absolutism on display here is not welcome in a collaborative environment which seeks to document academic knowledge. Just as we do not conform to the Muslim stricture against depicting Muhammad, we do not allow a Christian literalist to dictate how we discuss the Bible. Anyone who is arguing content with statements like "If there are errors [in the Gospels] that means there is no God. Only non-Christians claim errors, and they have yet to find one."[90] and thinks only Christians can have an opinion on or knowledge of Christianity - "Is he a Christian? If not, he doesn't matter on this subject. Clearly, you are not a Christian, so why are you camping on this page?" [91] - (Even leaving aside the frank bigotry displayed in such a statement.) simply does not have the collaborative temperament for this project and is not likely to develop it no matter how much time is given. JbhTalk 12:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reblocked him for an indef period, something I almost did last night but commented instead. (I didn't know it would turn into a poll, but hey, consensus is pretty obvious since). I have revoked his talk page access (via WP:IAR) forcing him to appeal to WP:UTRS. The racist comments linked above about "white guilt" was the icing on that cake.[92]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller, you restored Eodcarl's talkpage access, which Dennis Brown had revoked 8 minutes earlier [93]. Was that intentional, or was it just an edit conflict of some sort? Softlavender (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis Brown That must have been done while I had was blocking with Twinkle, as his text wasn't on the talk page when I blocked, nor was it here. Anyway, I've fixed it removing talk page access and noted the fact that IPs have been vandalising this discussion. Let me know if he attacks anyone using Wikipedia email. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP addresses vandalising were Til Eulenspiegel

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

    Reagrding articles about maithripala sirisena

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

    Assuming you mean this section. That looks perfectly legitimate to me. We're not accusing him in Wikipedia's voice of nepotism, we're noting that accusations of nepotism have been made against him, and the fact that the accusations have been made seems more than adequately sourced. ‑ Iridescent 09:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Journalistdmy obviously has a COI,[94] and has continued to edit Maithripala Sirisena to remove sourced content, without responding to questions on their page and apparently neglecting to read or pay heed to the policies and guidelines they have been linked to. I have warned them to stop editing the article directly and instead request edits on the article talkpage. If they persist in flouting our rules, I'll block. Bishonen | talk 13:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Jkouhyar: "I'll sue you": [95]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And now: "I also sue you. thanks!!" [96]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably a non-native speaker. In this case, I would interpret it as "I will report it to the administrators". But I'm feeling generous today. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That confirms my suspicion. Not a legal threat. CIR, not NLT. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They are both clear legal threats. Pleaase read WP:SUE and WP:DOLT. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Please read WP:COMMONSENSE. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy, which you don't seem to understand, is clear. I don't know why you are trying to equate the word "sue" with the word "report". Please let administrators handle this. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is you who doesn't understand. And it's not really worth arguing over, because in the end the result is the same. I am pretty sure that Jkouhyar meant: "I will also report you" so I would block for CIR not NLT (I am not an admin, YMMV). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, TQP is correct here; "Sue" has a secondary meaning of "appeal formally to a person for something". ("Sue for peace" is probably the most obvious example still in common usage.) I've warned Jkouhyar about their language in the section below, but this is almost certainly someone with English as a second language who doesn't appreciate how the term is perceived in normal English usage. ‑ Iridescent 11:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically agree with Iridescent, but now Jkouhyar seems to be editing every Iranian film he can find, with clear WP:CIR issues. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your problem with me? Softlavender attacked me but What is my fault? the law says Nothing. I try make better cinema and historical articles. Jkouhyar (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that someone reverting an edit of yours with a perfectly reasonable edit summary, or reporting a possible legal threat, is attacking you, then I fear your time here at Wikipedia will be limited. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your English is going to cause problems here. It isn't terrible, but it is difficult to edit and collaborate with others unless you have a stronger grasp on the English language than you currently have. You would likely be better off working in the Wiki for your native language, and limiting your time here while you work on your English skills. Just like the word "sue" almost got you in hot water because it is used differently than you thought. Google translate won't help you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you linking to DOLT? While DOLT does acknowledge people are often blocked for making legal threats, the primary purpose of the essay is to emphasise even if someone has made legal threats, you should consider if there may be a good reason the editor is complaining which you should deal with rather than simply blocking and ignoring, especially in BLP cases (which isn't the case here). Actually it sort of acknowledges sometimes a block could be avoided in a legal threat case. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    insult

    Softlavender insult me and remove context the source.[97] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkouhyar (talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the insult? Softlavender used the edit summary "removed unsubstantiated". That is not an insult. Also, you are supposed to notify her of this thread. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And don't threaten to sue people just because they disagree with you. The only reason I haven't blocked you for making legal threats is that I don't consider your threat remotely credible. ‑ Iridescent 11:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your problem?? I am not worked with you but do not insult me. Thanks Jkouhyar (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But You. Iridescent I dont know you!!!!!! Jkouhyar (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is insulting you. And this board is not restricted to people you already know - you asked for admin input and you got it. Now stop making spurious accusations and try discussing disputed changes on the appropriate article talk page in a civil and collegial manner. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Malleus Maleficarum disruption by Vami IV

    I'd like to advocate for topic ban for Vami IV (at least)(actually, I was worried about disruption to this particular article only).

    In context of this article, Vami IV is best known for complaining about bias in Malleus Maleficarum that was, in his opinion, evident because lead section said that this book is misogynistic and in his opinion apparently this book wasn't misogynistic. This word had 6 citations at the time, citations with quotes. (before talk page section there was 1 citation with quote by Broedel and rich descriptions in article body[98], significant time before his NPOV noticeboard post there were 6 citations with quotes)

    He raised this issue on articles' talk page [99], brought this issue to NPOV noticeboard [100], [101] (he later expanded it by affecting his original post after multiple replies have been made, which led to block of my account due to my reverts, block of my account was almost immediately overturned by another admin). Vami IV was also reprimanded here for WP:NPA [102] and instructed here [103] (please also note how Vami changed his signature to "Non multa,sed Vicipaedia" partially obscuring his username in this thread).

    The turning point for posting this to ANI is this edit by Vami IV: [104]. He changed his mind completely, now he made, to give some examples, the following changes to the lead section:

    1. "that is misogynistic" into "that is today considered to be extremely misogynistic"
    2. he modified multiple quotations from Pavlac, Guiley, Burns, Britannica by modifying them, for example "for Kramer's misogyny" into "supposed extreme mistrust of women". He also added unwarranted tag "citation needed" to suggest that the preceding statement is unsourced with the following citation. which can be interpreted in many ways with various levels of sophistication.

    I will stop short of speculating what are his intentions. Please take into consideration that this is a highly controversial article and very challenging to develop even without this kind of disruption. This article is also listed as high importance in two wiki projects and of importance in other wikiprojects.

    PS. I kindly ask some admin to revert his edit completely (I am following 1RR). --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • On a personal note, I really did not want to see this here, or at least not yet. I was hoping that someone besides one of the two sources of the current conflict at the article would have brought up Vami IV's behavior (assuming Vami IV doesn't just leave the article alone). Some of the stuff brought up by OP (who is not in the best position to be making this report) is iffy. Yes, Vami IV has changed his signature, but that's not really an issue. He does a lot of other good wikignome work such as tagging talk pages. However, Vami IV (who admits to being a Gamergater) has shown some concerning behavior when it comes to this article, such as:
    As most of his edits consist of tagging articles as BLPs, it's hard to sort through his other article edits. Based on what I've seen here, though, I'm having a very hard time trusting him with gender related topics.
    Please do not let this get bogged down in other issues about the article. For those who are unaware, both Asterixf2 and Ryn78 (who will no doubt be here soon enough) are arguing over which version is the best, and both of their versions have their merits. If they'd quit fighting like schoolkids, there'd be a damn fine article. That could and should be resolved peaceably with no admin action. However, Vami IV has buttered up Ryn78 with empty "me-too"-isms, never addressing any concern Ryn78 has raised while only targeting the word "misogynistic" -- a word that Ryn78 has previously left in and had no issue with until I advised him to not seek an ally in Vami IV. Vami IV's behavior's only connection to the Ryn78/Asterixf2 conflict is that he has exacerbated it for his own ends (ends which are illustrated above). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If it would end this entire debate, I will submit to whatever disciplinary action you decide to take against me.
    P.S. You probably won't believe me, but at the time I didn't realize that changing my sig would erase my name from signed posts. I was simply trying to make a really cool sig - colored text, links to my user and talk pages, the whole nine yards. If it helps, I'll sign like this: --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 17:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)[reply]
    P.P.S. When I wrote "I too have cited sources," I was talking about my NPOV violation claim and the 4 or so sources I used there. --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 17:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)[reply]
    The signature is not an issue, and your "sources" were talk page posts. Just because you put something in ref tags does not make it a source. This isn't about punishment, this is to prevent you from disrupting the article further. If you will agree to quit exacerbating the conflict between Ryn78 and Asterixf2 by leaving the article alone (so that it can be resolved by neutral editors), that'd be all that's necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the other editor Ian Thomson referred to (the other one "fighting like schoolkids" as he describes it). This issue is being grossly exaggerated here. Vami changed a few phrases, including restoring one that I had deleted because it was a point of contention. I reverted all of his new changes today, so they aren't even an issue any longer. While I would prefer that Vami had left this stuff out while we discussed it, nonetheless Asterix himself has continuously added or deleted entire paragraphs while we were supposed to be discussing them (up until he was placed under a 1RR restriction by an admin because of his edit-warring). But now he's demanding that Vami be banned for changing a few phrases? That's ridiculous, unless you're also going to ban Asterix himself for far worse offenses on an ongoing basis.
    Ian Thomson isn't helping things much by making caustic accusations of his own. Vami objected to the word "misogyny" because (as he explained on my talk page) he feels that Wikipedia shouldn't present value judgments about historical issues, not because he hates women. There's no evidence of the latter. He also doesn't seem to realize what the Malleus actually says about women, in which case he's proceeding from a lack of knowledge rather than from the malice that Ian Thomson keeps alleging. I also tried to explain to Thomson that many historians, including women, have also taken issue with the way that feminists have tried to politicize the Malleus, which is similar to Vami's arguments. I hadn't previously really taken a position on this dispute between Vami and Asterix/Ian Thompson, but I think the best thing would be to 1) state what the Malleus actually says rather than putting a label on it (e.g. its claims that women are likely to be atheists and likely to dabble in the occult; its recommendation that female prisoners' pubic hair should be shaved and then tortured, etc). 2) The disputed phrases could easily be written in a neutral manner that both sides can agree to. But that isn't going to happen unless the heated rhetoric is brought to an end, and likewise Asterix's constant attempt to report and punish people for even the slightest disagreement. He has made frivolous "reports" against me as well, while spreading this debate into several other pages. When is this finally going to end? Ryn78 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, your civil pov pushing focused on a fixed collection of aspects since 2013 is by far worse. [105] Ian.thomson is helping a lot despite the challenging nature of this matter as I have emphasized in my comment on his talk page [106]. BTW fyi: Ryn78 has buried this vital section [107] ("Reception") in HTML comment so that it does not appear as removal of a lot of valuable content (here is a diff: [108]. I have used there a source on which he insisted (Jolly). I comment on this section in article's talk page. Ryn78 has not raised any substantial arguments regarding this section. Ryn78 hides various pieces of text in many ways. a) pushing them to notes b) to ref block c) to html comment block. He was also caught on removal of citations (without removal of sentences). Against hiding text he was warned by another user previously (he is doing it repetitively) here I raise all of this here. It doesn't show up as removal of a lot of text. Not to mention his failure to recognize excellent sources and at the same time pushing questionable sources into the article and into lead section in particular. Corresponding RS noticeboard threads are here and here. All of which and more I raise also on talk page. --Asterixf2 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently suggested that Asterixf2 and Ryn78 need to go straight to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and thrash their differences out, and I agree with Ian's comment that there's a featured article to be got out of this if only the two of you could get along. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not done that because I was afraid that it will only distract me from expanding this article. I am planning to continue adding new content. I perceive more detailed descriptions of controversial aspects as the best way to reach consensus. Also adding more content before going to DRN will probably make it more plausible that more informed decisions will be made so to some extent I can live with Ryn78's very difficult conduct. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JMWt

    Although there are many criteria under WP:DEL-REASON, all of them come down to "Once you remove the policy - violating stuff, there's not enough for WP:N." (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    WP:NOTBATTLE I am discussing my opinions on the above user's AfD which I believe is predicated on poor policy arguments. I have not attacked him/her personally, the other points from talkpages have nothing to do with this. JMWt (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not breaching WP:NOTBATTLE. That is your interpretation of my attempts to provide guidance to an obviously inexperienced editor. I am trying to ensure that other readers are not misled by your repeated assertions that such policies as WP:VERIFY (including cases where WP:BLP is relevant) and WP:IINFO are "not policy reason for deletion". Thank you. Jack | talk page 17:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, bringing in issues which are nothing to do with you to bolster your self desgnation as an "experienced editor" who can "provide guidance" is to "hold grudges, import personal conflicts". I'd like to continue with the AfD if you don't mind, without your helpful guidance. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unacceptable edit summary?

    What everyone else has said - no action needed. GiantSnowman 18:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Tarage has left the edit summary "Enjoy your ban" here.[109] Is such an edit summary acceptable - it seems like a form of grave dancing to me. I notice from Tarage's Talk page they have been warned previously by admins about unacceptable edit summaries. I am not seeking sanctions here, but perhaps an appropriately worded stern warning from an admin is required. DrChrissy (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for fuck's sake, does every little thing have to be a new ANI grievance? EEng 17:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a suggestion of another place I should take it to? DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps just leave it alone? -- The Voidwalker Whispers 17:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion

    PROTECTED & BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) page protected and socks put back in the drawer by Ian.thomson --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Also, I'm indeffing AmirSurfLera for sockpuppetry. He's clearly not interested in operating in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Does this diff -

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=746919097&oldid=746913371

    constitute a legal threat?

    Trugster | Talk | Contributions 08:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Stating something is libellous is not a legal threat. Stating 'I am going to sue you for libel' is a legal threat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't say that that was a legal threat at all. Pointing out that someone may be engaging in libel is not the same as saying they find it libelous and are intimating they may sue. Blackmane (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If you read what I wrote, you will see that my statement is made to Wiki, in that I asked for the removal of a rant (hopefully with a gentle warning) from a BLP Talk page on the grounds that it was libellous against me (I am not the subject of the BLP, although I know the person in question). I had intended to discuss what can happen in a situation where a historical author is engaged in activities damaging to his reputation, but are unrelated to the historical matter, and where a single episode in the historical subject can be used to cast doubt by his opponents over the rest of his output - these are important issues in the context of historical writing. I do not expect to get a response along the lines of what came back, which as I stated is libellous. I reported it to Wiki to avoid a direct slanging match with the author of the comments, which may well have resulted in threats of legal action, precisely because that is not helpful to what Wiki is trying to do. Nevertheless, neither are comments like those conducive to sensible discussion and I asked Wiki to deal with it. The rationale for the complaint was that the comments were libellous against me (and thus irrelevant to the question or BLP) and I did not make any threat to their author. DaveHMBA (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @DaveHMBA: "libel" is a legal term, and even if accusing another of engaging in libel against you is not technically banned on Wikipedia, it is highly discouraged. If you believe someone violated BLP against a named individual, or attacked you personally, then you should say so -- using words like "libelous" only causes problems. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri: I am perfectly well aware of what 'libel' means as I qualified up as an English lawyer many years ago. "Attacking" someone is not necessarily a defamatory statement 9see the "personal attacks" item above) and putting a defamatory statement in a permanent medium is libel. There are too many people on Wiki and elsewhere, who think they can say what they like and - if you read what I have just written above - it is important that they and their activities are brought to the attention of Wiki and the wider readership. I have simply asked Wiki to remove it as it is libellous, falling within that definition. "prsoanl attack" can often simply be a matter of opinion. DaveHMBA (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP adding "... years ago" to infoboxes of countless airlines

    171.7.82.233 has been adding "... years ago" to the infobox of countless airline articles. I have explained to him on his user talk page that this would need manually recalculating and editing each year, and also pointed him at the instructions to avoid such wording, in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references. but he has continued. Could an admin please take appropriate action, including a block (until he understands) and a reversion of his edits to date. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just reverted, for a second time, the"...years ago" line - plus wrong date format -on the United Airlines article. This IP is not listening and a short block should be considered. David J Johnson (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They or you could have used {{start date and age}} which is easier. It's possible they're just copying the output and pasting it in, which is rather more involved.--Auric talk 12:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated reinsertion of copyvio text

    Editor: 大越古風
    Article: Nguyễn Lưu Hải Đăng
    JbhTalk 12:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=747124933"