Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.161.217.209 (talk) at 06:53, 3 November 2016 (→‎IP editor 207.161.217.209 vs Drmies: Reply). 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.

    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

    This has been running for a few days and no one but Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi saw fit to comment, which means, really, that no administrative action is going to come out of this...this what, I'm not quite sure. Nothing actionable. The plaintiff didn't seem to have offered any evidence, which is a huge no-no, and the rest was mostly bickering with another bickering editor thrown in for good measure. Archive, please. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am the editor of the page of Pal Milkovics. This page has been on Wikipedia since 2008, in this year's August I have start to update the page as a first time editor, as the article has not been updated since quiet some times. User:Zackmann08 from the first moment was harsh and very unwelcoming with me as new editor. He has nominated the article for deletion of which has been closed without consensus (of course I have had no problem with the nomination). Since then I am trying to update the article but he is deleting almost all my edits as well re-nominated the article for deletion. I several time asked him in his and mine/the page's talk pages to stop harassing me and the article. But he is constantly keep deleting edits, references and accuses me with personal interest. The article has 16 references each of them, according the guidelines, could be a proper reference (please note I tried to add even more) and can establish notability. I would like to have your help to stop him, as he is indeed a very experienced editor, and he tries everything to delete the article and stop me editing. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[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]
    I no longer have a full-time net connection, plus I have all sorts of things going on in real life. Your response here was to aggressively avoid the substance of my argument and act as though feeding your need for attention is more important than that or anything else I previously mentioned? Please. I was about to remove this sewer pit of a drama board from my watchlist the other day when I noticed a thread centered upon you and your editing activity. Whenever I see your username on my watchlist, it usually entails edits revealing POINTy behavior similar to what I describe above. You say I "bring up edits I made over a year and a half ago". That means that for a year and a half, there has been content lying around that causes more harm than good to the encyclopedia, evidently stuff you made up out of thin air under the guise of "consistency", whose purpose is to allow you to take credit for something instead of credibly expanding our coverage of what's notable about a subtopic. Does that mean that I have to waste even more time dragging it through TFD? If you want to take that route, then you should be expected to hang by your own rope. The one editor who incessantly messes with others' edits to infoboxes of political biographies in the name of "consistency" inserted the signature of John Conyers into the infobox of Don Young, where it remained for well over a year. I didn't revert it because that editor appears very confident in what they're doing. How dare I expect someone else to have to answer to their own brain-dead fuckups rather than using BEBOLD and/or SOFIXIT to address the effects and not the cause, I guess. In this case, I've already made it clear that I'm not going to further clean up something when you feel entitled to exercise veto power over those edits while making no significant efforts of your own to improve it. There's already too many OWN editors across the encyclopedia doing exactly that. If you need another, more recent example, Sockeye Fire was originally created with an unnecessarily long title, which I moved to a more concise title a while back. Your response was another move so minor as to perhaps be meaningless, plus other not-necessarily-helpful edits, based upon some obscure particular project guideline. Okay, whatever. The information from the BLM I read last year stated that the major fire action in Alaska occurred in sparsely-populated wilderness areas in the Yukon, Koyukuk and Kuskokwim river drainages west and northwest of Interior Alaska. Rather than recognizing that and reflecting what's notable, you decided to once again go after low-hanging fruit and toy around with this one blatant WP:NOTNEWS exercise about a fire which received a certain amount of media coverage because it happened in a populated area. No wonder so many are so reticent about making major improvements to encyclopedic coverage when it's subject to conditions like these. Things weren't like this when I first came here over a decade ago. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @RadioKAOS: wow that was a lot of rambling with not a lot of content... I never edited John Conyers or Don Young so no idea what you are talking about there... As for the moving of pages I don't understand what that has to do with anything? You seem to think I am trying to take credit for other's work which literally makes no sense. I'm going to be honest your message is so rampling, so sarcastic and so confrontational that I really don't know how to respond. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Seeing as how you don't want to deal with it, I'm about ready to drop this page from my watchlist and move on. If you want to offer the impression of leading the charge in a certain topic area but are doing it in such a way that others can see the smoke and mirrors and lack of substance involved, I'll just quit contributing to anything having to do with that topic and let you run it into the ground all by yourself. Besides, the fact that "consistency" is code for fucking with the good faith of other editors is hardly limited strictly to this episode. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]

    Update

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

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

    The block was based on their continued block evasion mixed with repeated personal attacks. As for whether the block can be successfully appealed or not, that's anyone's guess. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As with this IP that I eventually determined was not him, I was willing to give Oneshot the benefit of the doubt in that last SPI (despite far more substantial DUCK evidence), which is probably why his block had not been extended when Bbb23 moved to archive. However, Oneshot inexplicably began doing the same thing as the IP by leaving edit summaries/messages on his talk page riddled with allusions to past remarks I had made—and that apparent smoking gun, combined with Oneshot's incessant personal attacks, sealed his fate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if I have the chain of events correct here: You're saying that the IP who was the subject of the SPI inquiry was using edit summaries loaded with references to your past exchanges with OSOW, and then, immediately after the SPI closed, OSOW began making comments on his talk page which also used edit summaries with similar allusions? If I have that right, could I trouble you for the diffs, just so the record is complete here? Snow let's rap 07:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For whatever reason, Bbb23 didn't follow through, so the SPI was still open when Oneshot pushed his luck too far. Everything I said is documented in the archive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we can probably just drop this ANI report. OneShotofWhiskey has been indef'd, and the opposition to sanctions being placed upon the other two editors is clear and consistent. Unless anyone objects, I think we can call this resolved and move on... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[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]
    • Support indefinite page ban per my comments above. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I don't see any POV-related issues to impose a sanction upon TimesAreAChanging. Sure, his collaboration and frustration was not the best, and the edit warring on the article wasn't good either, but I don't see any specific content-related concerns that make me feel that a page ban is necessary. I think that TimesAreAChanging should take the feedback mentioned in this ANI thread to heart, and learn from his mistakes. Other than this, I feel that a page ban is unnecessary. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, as this appears to be retaliatory and unwarranted. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: What do you mean by "retaliatory"? Do you mean for the personal attacks Times has made against me? If so, what do you think of editors who make personal attacks? Wouldn't that be more a reason to support rather than oppose? What do you believe I was retaliating for and why? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're retaliating because I exposed your friend Oneshot—from whom you are now trying to distance yourself. (The proof is that SPECIFICO did not raise my days-old conduct as an issue here until shortly after two editors voted to topic ban Oneshot.) BTW, I'm honest enough to concede I was being similarly retaliatory when I advocated a topic ban for you—not because your conduct was not objectionable, but because I know it takes much more spectacular wrong-doing to achieve the requisite support, and even then it's a toss-up: Despite his egregious offenses, Oneshot had an excellent chance of evading sanctions for lack of consensus before a crazed series of sockpuppet attacks got him indeffed. With that, it's time to wrap this thread up. (I did find it amusing that within minutes of my broaching your actions this message appeared—your edit history doubtless deserves a more thorough investigation, but that doesn't mean I'll be the one to do it.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Times recently stated that I, SPECIFICO, have "avowed belief" that Whiskey had "reformed" etc. etc. I'd like to ask Times to document this assertion with a diff. To support his push to get me sanctioned in this thread, Times continues linking me to this apparent sockpuppeteer, for whom I have above endorsed a stiff topic ban. Undocumented aspersions against other editors is ipso facto a blockable infraction. As long as we're gathered on this page, I'd like Times to provide diffs to document each of the numerous aspersions and allegations he's made about me and the thoughts and motivations he imputes to me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    As explained below and reiterated above, you should be topic banned for the listed reasons. I'm sure Softlavender will respond on her own time if she deigns to do so.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[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]
    • Oppose Although SPECIFICO's interactions may be a bit abrasive at times, he is clearly not the source of the problems here. LK (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting closure

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

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

    There's nothing here to close. Just let it expire to automatic archiving. That's what happens when threads die out and nobody cares. There's really nothing to close. PS. I am not involved I was in the crossfire and got attacked. See ya. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the thread will not in fact be automatically archived so long as posts continue to be made to it, and you and TTAAC have continued to engage over your mutual ban proposals and general accusations of disruption, even after Oneshot was indeffed. So yes, I think a close would be beneficial here. Snow let's rap 03:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[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]

    • Speaking as an editor, I can see why you reverted the two sources out, as they weren't related to what they were supposedly citing. It would be interesting to hear why why PogingJuan (talk · contribs) thinks removing them was so egregious as to template you multiple times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[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]
    Yeah, I'm not going to push it, but you're not allowed to PrtScrn a copyrighted website and post the image on Commons just to make a point. And that is definitely not an ideal source -- even if it does say "The Gender Mainstreaming Program of the Davao City Government chosen as one of the Top 10 Most Outstanding Programs in the Galing Pook Awards in 2004". That actually isn't even the same thing as your text's "Davao City won the Galing Pook award for "gender-responsive" governance in 2004" -- it appears to contradict it. If you are seriously making this kind of edit on a regular basis, and you can't understand why it's inappropriate, the project would probably be better off without you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri, that last comment seems excessive and non-constructive. PogingJuan seems to be making some substantial concessions here and expressing genuine regret regarding where the source of the misunderstandings between you lay. You may wish to to consider that your own learning curve on this project has been especially steep and marked by controversial behaviour; there is not a single other editor that I have noticed who has been more regularly involved as a party to more combined disputes brought before ANI and ArbCom in the last year and a half, but we didn't write you off. I agree with your assessment of some of the issues you have highlighted in your last couple of posts here, but I don't think "we're probably better off without you" is in any way helpful or illustrative of the matters needing adressing, either for PongingJuan or for anyone reviewing the issues here. Snow let's rap 01:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There were misunderstandings, but there were also unambiguous threats and severe disruption to the article space, with not a lot of worthwhile content creation to counterbalance it. I agree the end of my last comment was harsh, but it was my honest opinion (based on evidence), and was clearly not a threat (I would have opened a subthread if that was my intent). If you want to keep an eye on PogingJuan's edits going forward to make sure no more copyvios, edit-wars, coatracking, BLP-violations, threats of off-wiki violence, etc. take place, be my guest. I have better things to do with my time, and as long as PogingJuan doesn't get in my way I don't see any need to pursue any of the above further. But if you are not planning on working to solve the problem, then you should not criticize me for simply stating that there is a problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Very obviously, I was not criticizing you for "stating that there is a problem", nor for using this space to address those issues--nor even to seek a specific sanction or community response, if you chose to do that. Unambiguously, I was criticizing one specific comment that was borderline incivil and certainly non-constructive and unhelpful. And I don't, in any sense, have to take responsibility for reforming PogingJuan's behaviour if I want to comment on where I think your tone and approach to discussion is inappropriate. That's the very definition of a false choice, and no policy or principle of community consensus requires me to resolve this entire dispute between you two before I can narrowly address one problematic comment.
    If PongingJuan is unambiguously displaying all of those behaviours that you list, then those are certainly issues that need addressing (specially threats of off-wiki violence if those have genuinely occurred--that's a bright line violation). But I'm familiar enough with your approach to the multiple running feuds that have been dragged here time again that I'm a little skeptical that this is as one-sided as you present--and your "I'll let him off here, so long as he stays out of my way" comment magnifies those concerns. Again, you're perfectly within your rights (and indeed, encouraged) to utilize the process here to address problematic behaviour in another editor. But that does not in any sense give you carte blanche to say whatever you want--please keep your comments in the vein of those observations which may be useful in resolving issues, and stay away from providing your general assessment of the character or value of another contributor. I honestly don't understand why you find that request controversial or surprising, or why you think I need to take over resolving the issues of an ANI thread you started before you are expected to comport with our community standards for civil and productive discussion. Keeping your comments focused on the specific issues at hand (and away from blanket judgements/insults) is not mutually exclusive with restraining disruptive editing in another party. Indeed, it actually makes that process a lot simpler. Snow let's rap 01:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? What "multiple running feuds"? You are familiar with "my approach"? The only feud that I have "dragged" here in the past six months was with a South Korean nationalist who kept accusing me of being a North Korean spy because I wanted Wikipedia's romanization of Korean to match the majority of English-language reliable sources (or something). If you thought said editor was being harassed by me, then you should have commented in one of those threads. In this case, PogingJuan was the one who brought his dispute with another editor (he had made a veiled threat about people off-wiki seeing the user's edits about death squads and was edit-warring to keep the threat in) to ANI, which is where I saw it, and I commented -- I was immediately met with several weeks' worth of bogus accusations, bullshit sourcing, and the rest. You clearly have not read the above discussion and all the evidence I presented if you didn't get this.
    And yes, you do have an obligation to actually look through the evidence presented and come up with a reasonable explanation/solution before casting aspersions against other editors. I said what I did, and I provided evidence for it. If you disagree with the evidence, you should try to refute it. Attacking me for my "tone" is inappropriate.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still missing my point here, Hijiri--you have a separate obligation to avoid WP:Personal attacks and other inflammatory comments, regardless of whatever disruptive behaviour you allege the other party to have engaged in--or indeed, regardless of whatever disruptive behaviour you have proven they engaged in. Again, I don't know why you are regarding this as a confusing or surprising principle, but let me put it in the most plain terms I can, an idiom that most any native English speaker becomes familiar with early in life: "two wrongs do not make a right". You can be completely correct in every assessment you make about his conduct and you are still not allowed to make just any comment you'd like. I went out of my way from the start here to make it clear to you that I had looked at the circumstances and that I agreed with numerous of your assessments, but that I viewed that one particular comment to be excessive and non-constructive. Regarding that one narrow assessment, it's irrelevant to me whether or not he is ultimately the major disruptive party here or not. If he is, then may you have every success in addressing his behaviour. But please, per WP:NPA, do it by keeping your comments focused on the issues at hand, and not by making general assessments of his worth, thrown in to register your generally low opinion of him. Making those sorts of comments does absolutely nothing to clarify or address the substantive issues, but rather only serves to inflame situations like this. Snow let's rap 02:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think pointing out, with evidence, that another user has a competence issue meaning that most of their edits are bad and even those that aren't still need to be scrutinized to make sure they aren't, and that this is more trouble for the rest of the community than it is worth, is a "personal attack", then I suggest you re-read WP:WIAPA. There are probably hundreds of editors who appeared to be editing in good faith but constantly made serious mistakes because they didn't know how to properly read sources (etc.) and were blocked because no one wanted to teach them the ins and outs, show them the world map, and so on. If you are not willing to do that, then you can't criticize me for not being willing to do that, and if you can't criticize me for not being willing to do that, then you can't criticize me for speculating that the alternative solution of blocking him until he can demonstrate himself that he can behave responsibly might be best. Speculating on that is not a "personal attack", even if the speculation is incorrect. You have admitted that you have not looked at any of the evidence (you apparently haven't even read PogingJuan's comments in this thread), so you have no idea even whether I am right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[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]

    • Is it Halloween already north of the Mason-Dixon line? Hmm...autobiography...Herman Basudde (1958–1997)... :) Drmies (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, look in his deleted contributions (or talk page). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. After I'd opened reports at both AIV and protection noticeboards, BU Rob13, who salted the autobiography, suggested I report here. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • He hasn't done anything more since the thread started, and his other contributions look only mildly problematic (and sparse). He has more deleted contributions than live ones, but they still mostly relate to Basudde. Is there any reason to keep this report open? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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: [35]. 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: [36] [37] and [38]. 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 [39], [40]; 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]
    • While closing most discussions doesn't need to be done by an administrator, it should be done by a user with a plausable likelyhood of becoming one, should they run immediately. 1700 edits is nowhere near enough to qualify fo this criterion,. And ArbCom enforcement areas need a higher level of care in handling, and probably should only be handled by admins. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      If that is true, it should be added to WP:CLOSE. —MartinZ02 (talk) 12:02, 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]
    • I think whoever closes the RfC should take into account the other discussions occurring at the talk. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[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]
    The RfC officially expired as far as the bot is concerned. Could one of the admins please close the RfC and assess consensus in the RfC as well as sections throughout the talk page..!? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threats (two now)

    Since other issues are being handled via other methods, this thread isn't particularly useful. The comment was not a clear legal threat, and no-one was attacking/insulting anyone. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 19:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC) (NAC)[reply]

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

    User:Jkouhyar: "I'll sue you": [41]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And now: "I also sue you. thanks!!" [42]. -- 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.[43] — 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]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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[44], significant time before his NPOV noticeboard post there were 6 citations with quotes)

    He raised this issue on articles' talk page [45], brought this issue to NPOV noticeboard [46], [47] (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 [48] and instructed here [49] (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: [50]. 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. [51] Ian.thomson is helping a lot despite the challenging nature of this matter as I have emphasized in my comment on his talk page [52]. BTW fyi: Ryn78 has buried this vital section [53] ("Reception") in HTML comment so that it does not appear as removal of a lot of valuable content (here is a diff: [54]. 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]
    For crying out loud. Now you're repeating the same stuff over here that you've been repeating on the article's talk page. I've already addressed all those points many times over there. Finally respond (over there, not here). Insisting that you can keep adding more of your own material without consensus is pretty much the definition of a refusal to ever reach consensus. That's why I commented out the last section you added: you can't just keep piling on more stuff before we've reached any agreement on the older material. That violates the entire point of discussion. Ryn78 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There were some statements we didn't agree on. Instead of deleting your pov, I kind of moved on to develop section Reception. This is a vital section for an article about a book (see example of article structure). You could have improved on my work but instead you once more have shown that you apparently have a different approach. I prefer to let the sources speak. In my opinion, you have repeatedly, and perhaps permanently, failed to work cooperatively and constructively on this article. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    PS. Section Reception was today restored by another user. However, inappropriate edits lead to this kind of confusion (Removal of It was a bestseller, second only to Bible in terms of sales for almost 200 years statement). --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I already explained why I commented out the Reception section: discussion becomes meaningless if one side is allowed to keep adding more material promoting their own POV before any agreement has been worked out on their previous material promoting their own POV. This is basic stuff. Ryn78 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have hidden it again with ridiculous edit summary [55]. Good-faith content of this section is clearly within the scope of this article and it is properly sourced. You violate content policy, WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT. This section does not violate WP:NPOV and even if it were, you could have developed it.
    (2) With 2 sources that were challenged you are in violation of WP:Verifiability. a) Behringer source violates WP:ABOUTSELF because there IS reasonable doubt as to its authenticity as shown in the RS noticeboard discussion. Also it is allegedly self-published. b) Jenny Gibbons is effectively self-published and you use it for exceptional claims. Both of your sources satisfy WP:REDFLAG. You ignore WP:NOTTRUTH completely and try to argue with me instead of talking about sources that are used in the article. Please consider replying in article's talk page only. Please avoid plausible misinformation. You may want to have a look at Denialism, conspiracy theory, Semmelweis reflex and backfire effect. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have copied article to my sandbox, updated lead to mention both authors (Ryn78 insists on one), restored content hidden by him and highlighted his additions, which are mostly not only npov and undue but also violate WP:RS what was already discussed in RS noticeboard (there is also new section in article's talk page about best sources). I am planning to add more citations and fourth paragraph to the lead that will mention controversy related to the second author. However, I cannot use 2 proposed by him sources because they are totally unreliable. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you asked that I reply on the article's talk page, I've addressed the one relevant point over there. The rest is just your usual scatter-shot method of finger-pointing (no, I didn't violate any rules by commenting out a new POV section while we're still discussing other POV sections you had added; and no, I'm not a "denialist" or "conspiracy theorist" or the other stuff you're accusing me of). Ryn78 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 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 if necessary. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposal What if Vami V were on a 1RR to match Asterixf2's?--v/r - TP 17:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible legal threat

    Does this diff -

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

    constitute a legal threat?

    Trugster | Talk | Contributions 08:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[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]
    • What they said, although they are skirting policy a bit. That is a word that is best avoided here as it is easy to tread into causing a "chilling effect" even if you don't make a direct threat. He wasn't notified, which is *required*, Trugster. See the template at the top of the page for instructions. I left a message on their page pointing them here and explaining. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stating something is libelous is not in itself a legal threat, but if it was meant to have a similar chilling effect to one, then there is no functional difference between the two in the eyes of Wikipedia policy. I'm not touching the content of the BLPN post or that article with a ten-foot pole (except to say that the BLPN post appears to actually belong on MFD, not BLPN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[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]
    @DaveHMBA: If you feel that a statement is potentially libelous or defamatory, you can approach any admin and bring it to their attention to request revision deletion. If it is really serious, then you should make Oversight aware of it so the edit can be suppressed. Bear in mind that requesting and edit be Oversighted should be done off ANI. Blackmane (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaveHMBA: Saying that you are a trained lawyer, and that that was definitely libel, does nothing to calm the situation. It makes your comment look more like a legal threat. Posting on BLPN that an entire talk page should be deleted because some unspecified comment(s) by User:Tirailleur (you should provide diffs) might be libelous is not going to work -- it's not even the right venue to request page deletion. BLPN is for requesting community input (not specifically admin input, and only admins can delete pages) on content disputes that are related to the biographies of living people policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful if DaveHMBA would identify what, exactly, he/she thinks is libellous in Tirailleur posts. I've read through the talk page and I'm not seeing it. What I am seeing is a fair amount of pomposity and condescention from DaveHMBA with absolutely no supporting detail. Right now, for me, the whole thing reeks of DaveHMBA making generalised wavy-hand assertions of some sort of transgression which requires the deletion of a complete page. I'm not buying that for an instant. Glancing at my bogusometer, I see that it is in the red. Details, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Like I said, read what I wrote - and i do not need additional stupid remarks from others, who know nothing of the subject area, such as Tagishsimon. If Wiki is going to allow the remarks of the type by Tirailleur (who is making similar comments on a specialist board), then I am not interested. DaveHMBA (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    He blanked Flags of the Imperial Austrian Army of the Napoleonic Wars a few minutes ago so I've given him a 31 hour block. Yes, he created it, but blanking isn't the way to go. I'm not happy about his comment just above or his refusal to be specific. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I should be more specific about times. Within a minute of his comment above ending with "I am not interested" he blanked the article. I saw that as a disruptive response to this discussion. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. As Ken White at Popehat often states, vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of meritless thuggery. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't much like it being insinuated that I don't know what I'm talking about -- what is it that I don't know? The Napoleonic Wars? This isn't about the Napoleonic Wars. I do know Wikipedia policy regarding legal threats, which is the subject of this discussion. The original comment was borderline, and the user should have been required to clearly retract it and clarify that it was not a threat. In all of his/her comments in this thread, he/she has instead ramped up the implication that he/she meant it as a threat. Hopefully, if/when the current block is appeal, a retraction of the legal threats will also be forthcoming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[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
    • Copyvio removed by Metropolitan90 [56]
    • Replaced copyvio text [57]
    • Warned about copyvio [58]
    • Replaced copyvio text after warning [59].
    • Replaced copyvio text second time after warning [60]
    JbhTalk 12:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have revision-deleted the versions which contained the poem. BethNaught (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. JbhTalk 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guto2003

    I got reverted [61] by this POV-pusher and went to see their talk page. I must say I am impressed. Is there any reason they still have an empty block log since 2012?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. GABgab 21:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And, double-wow. GABgab 21:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, particularly your second diff was a deal-breaker for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the user responded: [62]--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They have always been insulting in edit summaries. However in general their edits are in line with NPOV despite their political stance. We wouldnt call someone a dictator unless the reliable sources also do. Even the Kim Jong-Il article avoids doing it directly, and there is no mention of it at all at Todor Zhivkov. Which is probably why there are many complaints on their talkpage about incivility over the years, but no actual sanctions nor have they been dragged to noticeboards. Wikipedian's tolerance for incivility is remarkably high for editors who are substantially correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know. Is it ok to create a redirect Hitlery Clinton which was deleted as an attack page? Is it ok to add a category "Anti-communist terrorists" to articles where no terrorism has never been mentioned? I would say that whereas some edits might be ok, there is a large fraction of edits which are certainly not ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can a redirect like that even be an attack page? Its not as if it contains any material and the term has wide usage in some areas (Trump supporters). Are negative redirects deleted routinely? (Genuine question, given the vast amount of ridiculous and in some cases obviously insulting redirects we still have) The Azov battallion are certainly anti-communist and I have seen them described as terrorists - albeit in partisan press. Categories are required to have a reliable reference in the article to support the category, as far as I know they are not required for the article to contain the exact wording that the category covers. Since Guto2003 said the category was supported by the sourcing in the article, the next question would be 'which one?'. But again, this is largely irrelevant. If the core complaint is that they are using insulting edit summaries, this has been going for *years* and no one has seen fit to do anything about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The core complaint is that they are here only for POV pushing, and a considerable fraction of their edits is borderline vandalism. Concerning the Azov battalion, I am definitely not a fan of this ultraright-paramilitary-unit-sudenly-turned-elite-detachment, but there are just no reliable sources describing them as terrorists. Certainly not in the article, never been there. Nazi - yes, nationalist - yes, terrorist - no. And the user ferfectly knows that, they just do not care.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how someone could even argue that their edits are in line with NPOV. Removing contentious labels is all well and good if you're not strictly doing so for leftist topics but adding them to rightist ones, especially without sources. They've created a category to label terrorists, out of line with the MOS and precedent (see the cats for Al Qaeda or al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya to see how we actually categorize "terrorist groups"), without providing any sources, regarding groups with an ideology that is the polar opposite of their own. Moreover they've shown a flippant disregard the community in dismissing numerous warnings and making personal attacks. Hitlery Clinton was a serious BLP violation and when it was deleted they brushed off the warning like they simply didn't care. I'm strongly inclined to block indefinitely here. Swarm ♠ 19:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You definitely have my full support for an indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP address FBI threat

    Joking, apparently. No need for admin tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A court of law in Trenton, New Jersey - just one of the many places you may not threaten to sue another Wikipedian
    Other places where legal threats are a no-no

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

    (diff)

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

    • It's certainly a form of harassment at the least. I suggest we block the IP for six months and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. We can start a SPI if it persists. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a dynamic Boston University wifi address, if that helps. It does look like trolling, but I don't think a block, especially a long block, will achieve much. Any repetition and we might have something to work with. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the fact that there is no dispute to which I can say the IP is trying to add a chilling effect to, I think WP:NOTHERE covers it nicely. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 20:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. I have given a warning to the user, he claims it to be a Halloween prank (Damn!). dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Organised vandalism

    More of the same re US election vandalism. Resolved by Acroterion. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Zzuzz, not sure how serious you are (you couldn't be, could you?), but your post does nothing to dispel the notion that Wikipedia editors are all socially awkward nerds shut up in windowless rooms with no other input or outlet. General Ization Talk 20:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    [British humour]. This seems to be something new, and organised. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're actually at least half-serious, perhaps you should offer some diffs or other specifics. Many of us have been seeing extensive, organized vandalism on articles related (even tangentially) to American politics for months. If you're seeing something else, it'd be helpful to know what it is. General Ization Talk 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Each of the listed articles, edits today. A classic example would be this image replacement and this gem. Sure there's some vandalism flying about, but as can be seen in the history of corruption and the other articles, there seems to a particular concerted focus today, from a number of accounts and IP addresses, on adding images in a Googlebomb style. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are seeing what you suspect to be coordinated disruptive editing on these pages you can always request temporary page protection. A quick look at the editing history does suggest there may be something going on, but in the grand scheme of things it's nothing to write home about. Just revert obviously disruptive edits and issue warnings/request PP as needed. Most vandals quickly loose interest in a page they are blocked from editing. It's also worth noting that a lot of this is a product of a bizarre and emotionally charged election campaign, which happily will be over in a week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All semi-protected for ten days, plus a couple more. Given the variety of IPs and new accounts, semi-protection is the way to go. I'm sure this will recur somewhere else between now and next Tuesday. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tendentious IP

    This IP appears to be a Biblical literalist who is here to promote Christian fundamentalism, Biblical literalism and creationism. Consider, for example:

    1. [63] citing Russian propaganda site RT and arch conservative periodic The New Atlantis top cast doubt on the view that sexual orientation may be innate;
    2. [64] removing the fact that micro- and macro-evolution have both been observed;
    3. [65] attributing Newton's development of the idea of physical laws to the Christian doctrine (Newton was not exactly religious, he famously refused to take holy orders, which delayed his matriculation from Cambridge);
    4. [66] special pleading;
    5. [67], claiming that the idea of genetic drift as a main mechanism of speciation is "hotly debated" among scientists (and note other contributions int hat thread);
    6. [68] aggressively promoting highly partisan sources as a means to presenting the James ossuary as legitimate.

    I have reviewed a substantial number of this users edits. They are generally tendentious, often rely on partisan and unreliable sources, and his approach in debate is extremely aggressive. In other words, a Warrior for Truth™.

    The address has been stable for some time, the disruption started in June (with a block).

    I think this user should be subject to a restriction. Ideally no article edits to topics beloved of the Christian right, and possibly some restriction on talk page argufying. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Support anything from topic ban to an indef ban, with emphasis on the latter My last run-in with this user was with them tendentiously asking a series of leading questions and making pointed arguments at RSN with the intention of engineering a consensus to remove any source linked to talkorigins.com. While the IP pointedly refused to answer direct questions about their personal beliefs, their editing history and arguments made it clear that they were a creationist, pushing a creationist POV. This was made explicitly clear when I provided four highly reputable sources for the claim that 'evolution is a fact' off the cuff and their response was to crow about my 'inability' to provide sources to back up the claim. I have a lot of patience with people, though I may come off as snappy at times (check my history with this IP if you don't believe me). But there is no way in hell I see a place on WP for anyone pushing an agenda to the point of lying directly to another editor about what that very editor had said, in immediate response to the words being discussed. I mean, it blows my mind that anyone could be so self delusional, to the point where WP:AGF has me torn between the two extremes of Poe's law. Is it good faith to assume they knew how fundamentally ignorant and distorted that response was, and were trolling? Or is it good faith to assume they were arguing earnestly, but from a fundamentally ignorant and distorted perspective? I honestly don't know. If an editor is making AGF difficult, that's my problem. But when an editor makes it downright confusing? I'm sorry, but that's on them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, the "only a theory" talking point. That's creationism 101, for sure. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In the context, it wasn't so much the "only a theory" claim, but rather a claim that even scientists agree that it's never been verified. And this was with the evidence that scientists have verified it literally having been staring them in the face, in bright blue, underlined links with expository context. Which you might recognize as being a bit further down the rabbit hole than your average creationist. In all, I get the impression that this user might well be a 'professional' creationist, in the sense of being an active member of the Discovery Institute or some other pseudo-scientific, subversive creation 'science' group. Either way, there's clearly a deliberate attempt to push their POV, and I think my diffs evince a strong CIR issue, as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with both Guy and Mjolnir. But I don't know exactly what to do about it -- indef-blocks are not possible with IPs, so how a "ban" would be enforceable is a question that might need discussion. Is the IP blocked for three months and any further abuse from this or another IP who appears to be the same person met with another three-month block? It's minor point, but I don't see the CIR issue. The user is WP:NOTHERE, and engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence to attribute this to a lack of competence -- it all looks pretty deliberate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban on an IP can be enforced through WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: but I don't see the CIR issue... I was referring to the fact that this user apparently felt either that he could convince me I hadn't actually just put the evidence up, or that they could convince another editor that the links above his comment didn't exist by simply ignoring them and responding as if they weren't there. I've met many intelligent people, and this editor is one of them. But people (intelligent or otherwise) who demonstrate such a fundamental disconnect from the normal human experience usually run into major problems when they actually attempt to work with others. I've seen it before on WP: a user with a strong POV ends up at AE or here, and gets hit with warnings or sanctions that actually get through to them. So they try to start working with others, only to hit a deadlock at the very first disagreement because they can't understand what is being communicated to them. They quite literally cannot understand how anyone could possibly disagree with them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, yeah, I see it now. This user is either deliberately feigning idiocy in order to get a rise out of his opponents or is genuinely incompetent. How anyone could read my comment as wanting confirmation that historians don't accept the "Christ myth theory" is baffling. Additionally, "If someone with zero knowledge on Jesus historicity" implies that, yes, this user is interpreting the sentence in question as saying that the ossuary is evidence that Jesus is the Son of God, or some nonsense like that. Support indef ban (TBAN, or SBAN, or one-way IBAN with everyone who wants it thus allowing anyone to revert this IP's edits with impugnity, I don't even care). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • [69] False claims about source wording. There's more to it than that, but I'm not going to get into it until some uninvolved editors start here. The thread is a bit too much of an echo chamber at the moment, with three editors who've all had much the same interactions with this editor being the only voices. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing on Merle Dixon

    Could someone take a look at Merle Dixon? In the first season of The Walking Dead he is clearly depicted as a racist and the other characters call him a "redneck". He calls a black character the n-word, called a Latino character a taco vendor, and when he returns in the third season he calls another Latino character "brownie", etc. But this IP user has been trying to remove these terms for a few days now, saying things in the edit summary like "He showed only one case in the first season to no he is not a racist", "Redneck is a racist term and is like calling a black person N word so that can not describe him as a character" and that removing the word redneck "is not pov pushing just because it's not the n word does not mean it can't be racist".

    [70] [71] [72] [73][74][75][76][77] 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, here we go, someone compiled a list of evidence: http://spoilthedead.com/forum/showthread.php/4469-Nicknames-by-Merle  :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Oh, here we go, someone compiled a list of evidence: http://spoilthedead.com/forum/showthread.php/4469-Nicknames-by-Merle  :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Descriptors of this fictional character should be drawn from reliable secondary sources, not from personal observation in watching he show. I note the article does contain an external reference for the "racist" descriptor; there seems no justification for removing it from the text but the question is really whether also including it in the lead gives it undue weight.
    This is a content issue which should ideally be discussed on the article talkpage. To facilitate this I've briefly semi-protected the article - if the discussion also needs additional eyes you might consider a third opinion or an RfC. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Euryalus, thank you for reviewing. I will definitely review this over the next week or so. There are reviews for all of the episodes the character appeared in (maybe a dozen episodes in all), so I will see what the reviewers had to say about him specifically and try to focus on that. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of interest edits of Observium by User:Mike_Stupalov

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

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

    User impersonating an admin

    User blocked. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    That username sounds very familiar. So far, I've reverted all responses to unblock appeals. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They were blocked. Issue resolved. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note there was one more unblock request that needed reverting, which I have done, and I've also struck some impersonating comments made using a faked signature. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I thought I'd checked them all. Also, just a heads up to everyone that this is the third account intended to look like an admin I've seen today. Looks like someone got a new idea they think is clever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly someone doesn't have better things to do. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

    The behavior relating to XPanettaa in particular was compelling enough for me to check. It's possible based on geolocation that Spodermin69 is related to XPanettaa. Infopage100 is not related. There's an SPI already for XPanettaa, and future requests should go there. Katietalk 17:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I protected the redirect at Bougenvilla for a year if that helps. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021

    In April of 2016, User:Light2021 was blocked for making promotional/COI edits and abusing multiple accounts relating to Exioms (which was deleted here). In June, I unblocked his account based on what seemed to be a reasonable request. (The blocking administrator, Boing! said Zebedee accepted an apology from Light2021 and did not object to a possible unblock). Since then, Light2021 embarked upon a campaign redolent of sour grapes to attempt to have scores of articles deleted. Several other users (User:Davey2010, User:Ronhjones, User:Northamerica1000, User:Wikidemon) have expressed concerns with Light2021 's misapplication of deletion policy and procedure as noted in his talk page history. To be fair, Light2021 has appropriately identified a few articles about companies that were deleted with a solid consensus to do so. Given the indiscriminate approach to nominating articles, this isn't surprising, per the stopped clock principle. On the other hand, here is a small sampling of issues that Light2021 has been warned/cautioned on:

    1. many, perhaps half, of the nominations clearly lack WP:BEFORE
    2. sending an article back to Afd less than a month after it had survived AfD with a "no consensus" !vote
    3. attempting to speedy an article that had survived one of his AfD nominations
    4. blatant misuse of the WP:HOAX template ([78], [79], [80]), and
    5. the user's limited command of English leads to word-salad nominations that appear to be copy-paste fragments of miscellaneous deletion policies, with very little variation between the nomination content.

    I'm proposing that Light2021 be topic-banned from deletion-related actions and discussions (speedy, prod, or AfD) for at least a year until they've demonstrated a better understanding of policy and make an effort to follow suggestions given by other editors. While it may seem harsh to include participation in deletion discussion, Light2021 's contributions to such discussions are nearly always cut-and-paste jumbled word salads, and as such are not helpful to the discussion. I've notified Light2021 of this discussion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    They've been warned plenty of times so this is well beyond an editor needing a pointer on deletion policy. A topic ban would certainly make my life easier, as I edit in this subject area, venture-funded startup companies, and part of this user's MO seems to be a disdain that the entire business sector is just hype, and giving it encyclopedic treatment it is the same as COI promotion. After their mind-numbing nominations of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delivery Hero and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo (app) hit my radar a couple weeks ago, I left them a stern warning to stop nominating articles for deletion without understanding notability policy — and was soundly rebuked by a couple admins for being too hasty and blunt. I was right, apparently. After many warnings, cautions, and attempts to engage, they do not even acknowledge that there may be a valid issue regarding their nominations (see their answer below, if you can wade through all the verbiage). Instead they lash out and make accusations. We can go through the process here and warn them again, we can impose a topic ban, or perhaps somebody can break through and can get them to listen or find another outlet for their Wikipedia editing efforts. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support editing restriction - Given the editor's stated willingness to cooperate (see below), followed quickly by yet another semi-coherent screed[81] suggesting that even when their editing privileges are in doubt they are unwilling to face the fact that they have been making bad nominations and don't understand Wikipedia's notability policy: "These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia…if you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment…Promotions being created by company." I don't see how the community can do anything other than accept the offer for mentoring. without a topic ban, but Hopefully with some help, and a clear understanding that this pattern should not repeat. I know the !votes are in favor of a ban right now., but I think that should be the last step, not this step. Either a ban is in order, or a restriction that a mentor must approve any deletion nomination, until and unless they understand and are willing to work within the notability guidelines..- Wikidemon (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC) (updated 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    You are continuously trying to force your opinion where it is not even required. On the mistake you made with Speedy Keep suggestions, and your comment there : "Okay, then, SNOW keep, and speedy close if there is any more drama from the nominator" proves how desperately want to close that matter without even giving substantial proof why it is an encyclopedia material by any means. you are continuously demeaning me and harassing me with your Written tone. It is definitely not in Good faith . Even the way you are commenting as Majority vote is done and things like that? I think Admins have wit and judgement power to decide what to do. You are definitely not an admin, as you have very biased attitude toward the judgement. on the other note for this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash verdict will be out soon. As your whole argument is based on my few AfD which has been kept. Some of them I agree and some not. As I am human, can not give you 100% accuracy where other human opinion in required. You have neglected my efforts to Zero where I have contribution and helping delete over 200 articles in sort span of time. In the process I must have made few mistake, as other admins are suggesting and giving advises. i will be more careful and will ask Expert (only Admins) for my selections or doubt. I am doing my best to make Wikipedia Spam free. And for DealDash and UrbanClap I have no other thoughts than a 1000% promotions. Have patience! Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You must listen to me and other non-administrators too. If you are not topic banned, or if you want a topic ban removed, you should think through whatever caused you to lash out just now with accusations and claims that you are being victimized, and try not to do that again. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Boss! (that you are definitely not). I listen to everyone perspective unbiased and in unbossy manner. Your tone is bossy, seems like I work for you, but FYI I do not! Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to listen to non-administrative editors here or not? It seems like you are saying that you will not. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Their nominations appear to me good-faith and they've been remarkably good IMO at finding highly deletion-worthy articles - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be that as it may, there are nominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash, which consist mainly of throwing a bunch of policies, guidelines, and essays around without explaining how they apply. Light2021 should be strongly encouraged to keep their nominations concise with a clear explanation of why an article should be deleted according to the deletion policy while keeping their personal feelings out of it. clpo13(talk) 17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is not good faith, it is WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. If I randomly nominated 100 new articles for deletion, I would be right about 95% of the time because 95% of new articles are not viable. Repeatedly nominating the other 5% that are clearly notable using nonsense rationales, and vigorously supporting those nominations with unintelligible prose, wastes countless hours of editors' time, regardless of how many other nominations confirm a stuck clock theory. FWIW, this editor's accuracy rate is well below 95%. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this logic of % can be applied in reversal as well. How the consensus and amateur close are made. It will cross over 90%. I think it should be good assessment from ends. Not as being accused by "Random" without diligence or using my intelligence or mere copy-paste job. I am confident I have not wasted my or contributors time discussing on AfD. That should be considered with neutrality non being on Personal commenting. Other are pending close. It should cross higher % close with delete. On the other hand 1000 of article are created with lack of this process. i am merely helping keeping only what really matters with Guidelines not by random means. Light2021 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My Version/Story Wikipedia clearly is not driven by sole Reference based article creation or promotions that is happening on large degree of quantity here. Only few mention in popular media and creation of Wikipedia article is used to build high degree of online promotions. Such as the case with many articles I have nominated.
    • I have nominated Afd and Speedy deletions and contributing tirelessly making Wikipedia Spam Free. due to this effort, more than 200 articles got deleted in such a sort span of time. Please Check my AfD counter and %. More than 80% Success closer with Delete. Over 99% Delete vote support.
    • As I have raised many time the issue of Vote count is given priority and all the contributions being ignored by citing GNC or other guidelines forgetting One Paramount fact: "Why such article makes an Encyclopedia Material". Such as this discussion is going on Because controversial AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). If you read the article, there is nothing to write except investment release and brief company profile. As this same issue is grave concern, where no one knows such company and blatant promotions are made. It has compromised the integrity of Wikipedia as World's most Trusted source of knowledge. Where anyone is able to write an article about their startup or themselves by citing GNC and few media references.
    • Other such as this being protected by same measure and misuse of Wikipedia. There are nothing to write about them. only interest is to lure their customer, Employee or shareholders. The way they are being covered by media is highly questionable in nature. Influenced by company PR and nothing else. : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grofers or Forever (website). There are no reference and Worldwide notability of the subject. Read these article and anyone with little Common-sense can say this is definitely not an Encyclopedia material by any measure possible. Either they come to the category of TooSoon or others as mentioned below.
      • If community think that such Admin warning are justified. Please Go ahead and block me. We are already compromised and even failing in the creations of World's most notable Encyclopedia ever created. Warning has been given to me several time by admins or editors because some Admin/Editors are unhappy with my style or Language. Where the matter is Thousands of spam is being created on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Article that got saved by Consensus or Votes are these few among the others As % is mentioned by Admin above. These article have nothing to write but 1 Paragraph about their company profile or themselves. How does it make anything Encyclopedia notable. It is grave concern that such blatant proportionals articles are being kept with such Vote numbers discussions. As Wikidemon keep going on his time Value. I think he is forgetting I am spending enough time not nominating random articles. If require I am ready to give justification on each and every article if he can mention. I have not done anything without using my intelligence or even common-sense. cases are like need only COMMON SENSE to judge how such article are even created. not forget the check Vote count and who actually contributed. COI or possible Paid PR editors. They do not Value anything close to Encyclopedia.

    Or I can give many such others with No-Consensus or Vote close if it helps. Moreover it is questioning on My Intelligence and this is a Humiliations made by OhNoitsJamie & Wikidemon for making comments such as stopped clock principle & WP:COMPETENCE and WP:TEND. Where Wikidemon is forgotten how desperately he made an non-admin close of highly promoted COI disputed article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash . These admins are making humiliations and mockery of an indidual as if they created this Platform and they know evertything. Where on several they are Wrong and not knowing the exact things. This is shame of Such admins who gives lecture on someone's Intelligence. (Sorry for 'Shame' word, but it is my bitter opinion about them). Light2021 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope we can find a solution which allows this user to continue to make productive edits, which he does, but also protects the encyclopedia from disruptive behaviors, which he also exhibits (an intermediate step could be limiting his number of AFD nominations). As for the disruptive behaviors, this user needs to stop making WP:SOAP edits like this to the talk pages of articles that he's nominated and which have survived AFD. He's been counseled numerous times to use WP:DRV when he disagrees with a deletion decision, but instead has resorted to posting long protest screeds on the talk pages of articles which he unsuccessfully nominated for deletion. See here and here as well. User also needs to stop adding speedy deletion tags to articles which he's nominated for AFD and which have survived the process. See here. The extreme tag-bombing needs to stop too. He's been routinely adding up to twenty top-level tags to articles, including erroneously using the hoax tag. See here, here, here and here. This is disruptive. This biggest issue isn't the disruptive editing, though--that can be addressed if a user is willing to WP:LISTEN. But this user doesn't appear to be. For example, when an admin asked him to stop erroneously adding hoax tags to numerous articles, his response wasn't exactly constructive. There is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality displayed here. At a minimum, the user needs to 1) stop PRODding articles which have survived AFD 2) stop posting WP:SOAP essays on the talk pages of articles which have survived AFD 3) stop tag-bombing and 4) refrain from renominating failed AFDs only two weeks after they've been closed, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination). He should use WP:DRV instead. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This user has been repeatedly warned about their disruptive AFDs, tag-bombing, talkpage rants etc etc and yet the disruption still continues, The lack of English & walls of food salad don't help (We should accept everyone here however the English needs to be of readable standard which it isn't (Some bits are understandable but most aren't)), The editor is unfortunately disrupting the project despite the help of many editors and admins, IMHO the editor should be topic banned from everything that relates to deletion (AFD, CSD, RFD, CSD) although this wouldn't need to be indef. –Davey2010Talk 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thoughts are coming from an individual Davey2010Talk who is contributor on Promotional articles. And Closes Non-Admin on many controversial AfD. Where even discussion is needed. Easy way to get rid of me saying Lack of English. This is ridiculous.Light2021 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh what "promotional" articles have I worked on ? ... I have no COI if that's what you're referring too?, Wrong no one wants to get rid of you ... If we wanted to get rid of you you would've been blocked many moons ago. –Davey2010Talk 19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (Davey's broad version), after looking at a couple of AfDs. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite those "Couple of AfD" and what about others? and My Point of view? Just coming here making Support Davey without giving deeper thoughts. Can you be specific and neutral. Give both perspective. Do not go by the Vote. Light2021 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seek Advise and neutral opinion on this matter Thanks. DMacks , Brianhe , Peridon, DGG, SwisterTwister, K.e.coffman , Lemongirl942 Light2021 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and it's not just AFD, there are MFD's as well. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I wasn't sure I would support this proposal (see my comments above), but seeing that the user has responded to this report not with introspection and collaboration but by making a series of ad hominem attacks on other editors and attempting to canvas other users here, it seems there is no other choice if the disruptive behavior is to be stopped. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I was leaning towards Clpo13 comment about trying to guide Light2021, but I now see this has been tried and the user has refused the help, TB is the next option IMO. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose tban for now - per my comments on the user's talkpage, as little coercion as possible should be applied. I think the editor may be amenable to the solutions 1-4 proposed by Safehaven86. - Brianhe (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, for now at least. I noticed this discussion linked on the editor's talk page, after I'd come to give them some advice on what G11 and A7 mean after having to decline a whole bunch of their requests while reviewing the spam queue. A couple of requests were valid, but most were not. And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem. I would hope this problem could be solved by giving some advice, but the reactions to previous attempts at doing that don't give me much hope. So, let's make it clear, Light2021: Would you be willing to, first, slowing way down on your deletion nominations, and maybe getting a second opinion from someone experienced in the area before putting a nomination forth? Maybe that would help you get your feet under you and learn what should be deleted and what shouldn't. But while it's not expected that everything you nominate will wind up deleted (we all can miss something, or sometimes new information comes to light), continuous nominations with tenuous justifications at best are a waste of the community's time. Your accuracy doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to be reasonable; you can't just throw nominations at the wall to see if they stick. If you're not willing to change course here, I see a topic ban as probably the only realistic outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your advise is sound. And I will do my due diligence if in doubt with other admins, like what actions should be best - AfD, Speedy or Proposed delete. I always admire and would love adhere to your suggestions. Still being realistic I am not perfect being, will make few mistakes in the process but will try my best to keep it bare minimum possible. I will do my best to nominate with more care and if in doubt will ask the expert advise as well. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • conditional support I'd like to see the attempts made by others (Safehaven86, Seraphiblade) tried first, but with a very short rope. I'll be pleased, but honestly surprised, if they do work given the pretty high level of belligerence I've seen. I'm saying "conditional support" because I'd like to have a consensus established here that there is community support for a topic ban so that if there are continued problems the ban can be enacted without delay. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose -- Given the rampant promotionalism on Wikipedia, such a ban would not be productive. I find myself agreeing with the nominator in most cases. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash showed the typical problems with such promotional articles. Opinions on what constitute promotion vary, but penalising an editor because they happen to be less inclusive than others is not the appropriate course of action, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I agree that the user could do with a little help and guidance, and might benefit from slightly less zeal, but the nomination record speaks for itself: a large number of these articles are blatantly promotional and should not be here. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This appears to be a case where mentorship would be beneficial given that in general their deletion requests appear to be reasonable, if not always following the process required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I do think Light2021 is trying to operate in good faith, and as noted above they have identified many articles that deserve deletion. But the competence required for the process is just not there. The nomination mentioned above by Davey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash, shows the problem. Regardless of whether the article is kept or not, the AfD nomination consists of an incoherent rant about paid advertising and a dozen links to unrelated or semi-related essays. That's not an acceptable nomination. Add to that the history of trying to speedy-delete articles that have already been through AfD, and it shows a basic misunderstanding of our processes. IMO Light2021 should be banned from direct participation in the nomination process. If someone is willing to mentor them, as suggested above, Light2021 could identify articles they think should be deleted and let the mentor nominate them. Or let Light2021 propose articles for tagging or nomination, but get the nominations approved and improved by the mentor before submitting them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, On the Current ongoing AfD I have made some comments of AfD. You can decide yourself Whether my assessment is wrong or right. These companies seriously provide no value to Encyclopedia Material. Do not go by my opinion. Need to check for yourself. If you leave those 2 apart any Admin would agree with my assessment that these are highest degree of Promotions being created by company to promote themselves using Wikipedia as platform. They have nothing to write except brief profile about themselves. On the other I have accepted suggestions by other admins. I will do talk first to other admins before nominating if I have even 1% of doubt, if that is considered as my learning from this one. Thanks. I have request, Please Go through article and discussions as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DealDash & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination) Light2021 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – A serious issue is that Light2021 has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of assuming bad faith, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and ranting in a battleground manner against users on multiple article talk pages and user talk pages, inre various matters, including deletion, other users' !voting, user intentions, etc. See User talk:Safehaven86 § SPAM OR WIKIPEDIA CHOICE for an example, and be sure to view content via the links provided by Safehaven86 on their user page there, which demonstrates these ongoing problems exhibited by Light2021. There is also the problem of drive-by overtagging and incorrectly adding the {{hoax}} template to articles. In addition to those listed above in this discussion, the following are additional incidences of incorrect use of the hoax template: diff, diff, diff. As denoted above in this discussion, when I asked the user to stop (diff), they didn't recognize or address the problem at all, and instead chose to rant about various other matters (diff, diff). North America1000 19:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I might disagree with your opinions and your ways of dealing things. It does not mean you are wrong or in a similar fashion it does not mean I do not listen to anyone or I am doing things the way I want. I am working in a community, and listen to their perspective. But forced opinion based on biased or simply not liking me for any sort of reason. As done in either Bossy manner (from some editor) or few others. Definitely not you and others as I admire and ready to listen and understand. I present my opinion. I will keep control and will try to put my point in a very precise manner if not so direct (blunt). As I think my writing tone is an issue here, not what I am doing. I think the best for this platform, and definitely not in bad faith as accused by few (not you). Otherwise i would not be here wasting my time. I love this platform and want to contribute my part. Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your own recent history of wikihounding on AFDs, you are in no position to accuse others - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing up legitimate concerns over an editor isn't wikihounding, Might I suggest you re-read WP:AGF - If you have an issue with NA1K then start a new thread and stop derailing this one. –Davey2010Talk 02:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Davey2010Talk you need to look what and how you say things. Questioning Admins as if you are the one who knows everything, where your misjudgment and biased is clearly written here. Whole thing is done because of your (including few) personal opinion and disliking of something/Someone. As you can go to any extend by doing anything, such as closing Keep with selective bias where your opinions lacks the neutrality. I can quote where you have closed AfD so early without getting to en end, on the other hand other clear Delete judgement are being Missed by you accidentally? closing DealDash with no reasoning. and many others. Even this Whole ANI is biased and being ignoring efforts of others, and counting only selective things to build and arguments. and Even try to forcing opinion like the other one is doing above in a bossy manner. No doubt you both are "Non-Admins" for such biased and selective opinions. As far as I know, David has clean history being an admin. I doubt yours. Light2021 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page access removal for 49.213.19.148

    Seems to have been done. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

     Done by Ohnoitsjamie. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    Retaliatory report brought by OP. Also per Drmies and Bishonen, the deadly duo.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Dear 4world2read, I recommend that you engage in the talk page discussion on that sub-section of the article, instead of trying to "enforce" this (highly problematic) version of yours. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply looking at the article history proves no one's point. Yes, I see the editor reverting IP edits, but they give (some) reasons for it, and I can't easily what's supposed to be right and wrong. (I did see one Breitbart citation in the IP version, but that's a minor thing.) I can start guessing as to who has which POV, but in the meantime I see a charge of edit warring which works both ways, and no engagement with the editor's conversation starters on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) with Drmies. 4world2read, I'm not aware of any warning templates that need to be used before asking others to take whatever is disagreed on to the talk page. More generally, your account hasn't edited the article nor the talkpage at all, so it's hard to tell what your angle is here. It's not really possible for admins to evaluate 2A1ZA's contributions to the article in relation to yours, since you're obviously not a new user, although your account is new, and I can't tell what if anything you have contributed to the article. I presume one or more of the IPs editing the article before you created your account at 20:50 28 October 2016, UTC, were being used by you. (The only IP that has edited the article talkpage since forever is 85.109.220.31, briefly, rather unreasonably accusing 2A1ZA of "vandalism".) Note that I'm not even allowed to ask which if any of the IPs are yours, as that would violate your privacy. As an admin, there's nothing I can do here. It's obviously a content dispute, so I recommend in the first place the article talkpage, and if that doesn't help, dispute resolution. I suggest closing this. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
      • Oh was that little tickle I just felt? Drmies (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Malerooster repeatedly swearing at others

    Polite cautions delivered and apparently well received. Problem solved. (non-admin closure) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Yeah some of that is a bit over the top. I dropped a note on their talk page. Hopefully they will take the hint and we can all move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had also told him, on his talk page, that this has to stop - I think that must have been slightly before this report was filed. He replied "You're right, I will. " I think he has gotten the message. With just a week to go before the election we may have a lot of people losing their cool. MelanieN alt (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you two have done an excellent job with talking to the editor about the incivility - Well done! I won't pile onto your awesome work by talking to him directly. However, I will say that this incivility is indeed unacceptable, and that Malerooster will be blocked if this continues despite the warnings. Thanks again, and well done with approaching this user in a direct but civil manner with his behavior. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user:Javier.alonso.martinez

    the edits blare the SPA and wp:notability alarms.Minimobiler (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is no alarm for notability. If you think the player is not notable, tag it for deletion. No need to take this to ANI. Also, please supply details and diffs, and notify the editor. You're talking about Javier Alonso. GiantSnowman, is this person notable? Drmies (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaint about conduct of User:Jarandhel

    Like the AFD, too verbose to the point of being disruptive. Let the AFD play out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (Expansive edition)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • 13 Oct 2005 - Initial activation, during which time he debated in Talk:Otherkin and later added, interesting enough due to current deletion debate, a reference titled "Lycanthropy--psychopathological and psychodynamical aspects". This activation continues on for the remainder of the month of October, but then quiets down through December until April 2006 when a single edit is made in the talk page again.
    • 8 April 2008 - Second activation, three years later (there is a single interlude in the midterm consisting of a single edit to Talk:Reiki). The editor makes a non-productive statement to the Talk:Raven_paradox page which strongly suggests a complete lack of familiarity of the topic; there are no responses to the question, since it is clearly answered in the remainder of the conversation as well as the article itself. Within short course, the editor is back into editing otherkin and the associated talk page as well as revisiting Reiki. This continues on as a storm through mid-April, but again quickly dies off terminating altogether in the first days of August.
    • 30 Oct 2016 - Fourth and current activation. The user showed up again, allegedly in response to vandalism on their page. This activation is the most pertinant, see remainder of complaint.

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

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

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

    • Synthesis - I have noted the behaviour of the editor is to often bring into the debate what amounts to synthesis of multiple articles' perspectives in order to push their own perspective (interestingly, they also like to accuse of this at the same time). Take for instance the following clip from one of my arguments:
    Quoting the Spirits of Another Sort article: "Another example of type maintenance occurs in an article by Th'Elf, who writes of Otherkin: It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk. Some include vampires under the label and others don't, but there have also been disagreements about the inclusion of most of the member groups as well as the label itself. Hosts and walk-ins are also included, though furries are right out." Jarandhel (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another source: Venetia Laura Delano Robertson. "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16, no. 3 (2013): 7-30. Full text available here: 1: "While there are Therianthropes who engage in Furry Fandom, the two are distinct subcultures and both eagerly encourage this differentiation, the former keen to disassociate the perceived frivolity of fandom and role-play from the spiritual solemnity of their relationship with animals." Jarandhel (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    and again later doing the action while at the same time slinging an accusation (and other errors noted below):
    Your source quotes therian.wikia.com as its source of information. Allow me to do the same: "There are many different types of Otherkin, but some of them include: Therian (Earth based animals), Dragonkin, Vampirekin, Faekin, Merkin (Mermaids/ Mer people), Alienkin, Fictionkin, and Factkin." http://therian.wikia.com/wiki/Otherkin Again, as I've already explained to you and as was stated extremely clearly in the Laycock source, therianthropes are a subset of otherkin. There is no "contradiction" between that point in these articles, you are simply misinterpreting them. Even simply looking at the DMOZ.org Otherkin Category will show therianthropes are a subcategory of otherkin. Jarandhel (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    which commits the egregious error of utilizing entirely unverifiable original works, including citing DMOZ, which is not an authoritative source, merely an aggregation point along with the wiki (attempting to bleed the authority of the paper's citation as an endorsement of authority to the entire source). Of critical importance as I note in my first quote of the document is that the author, while citing raw text from the aforementioned wiki, actually sets out and articulates the concept in his own words - going directly in the face of the given definition in the previous document utilizing the term as well as the otherkin page itself, using identical language. All the while the author is utilizing a paper where he rejects the definition provided, but adopts the language of why it should not be merged into furry. At this point, the editor has not put forth further evidence why the page should be stand alone, but merely utilizes this two-paper synthesis repeatedly while also making aggressive uncivilly loaded and impatient phrasing.
    • Personal attacks - This is the most egregious offence by the editor, and I will take the time now to list off the worst, and ones with most possible consequence to the outcome of the debate as well. First, I will cite the introductory portion of the editor's text:
    I actually found out about this nomination for deletion in a rather unusual way - a vandal on my wiki going by the name "Nafokramkat, Destroyer of Planet Substub" moved one of the pages there to Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination) tonight. That seemed rather specific, so I took a look over here and found this AfD going on.
    while this may serve as a somewhat harmless statement, it is clear that the editor's position is already loaded on the pretense of a negative situation. Shortly thereafter, I point out that he has intentionally introduced bias by starting with a claim of vandalism specifically which is in bad faith to the conversation
    later followed by upon being pointed out
    I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or procedure which would allow the administrator of an unaffiliated wiki to report vandalism of their wiki by a Wikipedia user and have any action taken here. If I'm wrong about that, please point me to where I would do so. The evidence is easily provided: 1 2 3 4 5. I thought it was important to note what brought me here, as it is pertinent to my own biases in this AfD discussion.
    then
    I would personally be much more interested in administrators validating the IP of the user present in this discussion whose username (KATMAKROFAN) is actually an anagram of the username of the vandal on my wiki (Nafokramkat), if indeed there is a wikipedia policy that would allow checkuser under these circumstances. Jarandhel (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Where the editor in question now states a specific user by name. It is at this point replies cease in this thread, however, even after my additional followup, no effort or attempt is made to negate or otherwise remove the offending and loaded content in this vein or any other. Later on, I had my efforts to retrieve a paywalled article somewhat frustrated, so filed to have it retrieved and/or summarized by the appropriate parties to which I was met with equal measure of shock and gratitude when the editor produced the article for me, but felt it necessary to again take another chance to take a shot
    I guess you didn't try simply searching for the title yourself? Full Text via archive.org Jarandhel (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    at which point I simply went with the typical advice, and allowed it to slide and thanked the editor while gently reminding the editor of conduct requirements. Unfortunately, this was not the last incident of the editor making use of these types of tacts, later in the debate becoming aggressive again when the circumstances demanded he provide further evidence to his point
    From the first quote from Spirits of Another Sort by Laycock, AGAIN: "It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk." I believe that firmly establishes the super-class/sub-class relationship, in what we have already established is a reliable source. Jarandhel (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Shorly after which I prepared this document since it became necessary to seek external remediation to this situation that I had been unable to satisfactory solve myself. (since the time of this last post, more has been posted, but it has been unremarkable. It contains not much else in terms of accusation, but more hampered logic which I again refuted, etc.).
    At this point I would like to conclude by stating that I cannot suggest any course of action, nor comment upon my own behaviour as it would be inherently self-serving to do either; both to my side of this debate, which is on-going, but also to myself directly. I will state, in no uncertain terms, that I have presented the facts here with citations in the manner consistent with how I understand them to be, including the alleged fact that I did not participate in the behaviours that I am accusing the aforementioned editor of conducting, and have addressed to the best of my ability any short-comings pointed out to me in my own arguments and style. As such, by these circumstances, you're more then welcome and encouraged to weigh in on myself as well, and the argument if you have any points that can break the impasse which is as yet unresolved. I for one would like to continue on in this debate, however I also do not wish to be personally attacked any more - I want my points to be refuted coolly through sound logical reasons, not personal grudges, pet theories, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianmang (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    I don't think I have ever seen such a long ANI submission. If you want anyone to even read this, let alone act on it, I recommend that you reduce it by at least 90%, since nobody is going to wade through all 7000 words. RolandR (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I second with RolandR. This feels more like a graduate thesis than a complaint. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    30,000 bytes removed, linked back to "expansive edition" for anybody who needs more context. Thanks for the advice @RolandR. Tianmang (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read it nonetheless. The matter should be dealt with at the AfD. (but I do have the impression that the poster may be wittingly or unwittingly trying to remove opposition to their view of the subject) DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that I did not request any specific action beyond the users' conduct be evaluated and acted upon to prevent the type of behaviour noted which is disruptive to the conversation. Anything else, by all means defer until the AfD has concluded. His arguments, while I disagree with, are fine and I will continue to debate him - but only politely. I wish only for such consideration be both ways. Tianmang (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    • Reduced copy put in, original linked at top Tianmang (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - one has to wonder why someone who seems unable to say anything in less than 5000 words (this applies to both main parties in this discussion) would be editing an encyclopedia, whose express purpose is to summarize what has been written about a given subject. If you cannot summarize your own thoughts, how can you summarize someone else's? John from Idegon (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kurt Grüng

    (non-admin closure) Resolved 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The IP address on that page has been blocked for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The other accounts may very well be SPA's or meatpuppets, but the votes within themselves doesn't warrant a block. I can close this AFD.... stand by. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD closed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warrior and Sock Puppeteer

    I was going to take this to the edit warring noticeboard (as is the standard), but Zjec now appears to be using a specific IP range to further their edit war ([82], [83], [84]). The reason I didn't take this to WP:SPI is because, in my experience, they mostly deal with active IP addresses. Zjec seems to change the IP addresses, while remaining in the same range.

    Essentially, Zjec has been edit warring at Hulk (comics) with biased edits ([85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]). Zjec wants to remove material pertaining to the 1970's Incredible Hulk television series simply because they dislike the show for not being close enough to the comic book (see Talk:Hulk (comics)). But despite replying to the discussion, Zjec never stopped edit warring. This user's edits directly violate WP:NPOV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and have been opposed by multiple editors who have warned Zjec to stop. Zjec has been given every opportunity to cease this absurd behaviour, yet they chose not to. And now, they brought an IP range into this. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagging relevant editors: @*Treker: @Adamstom.97: @Ian.thomson: @Ritchie333: @Darkwarriorblake: DarkKnight2149 00:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian.thomson seems to have handled the situation by blocking Zjac for 60 hours. Hopefully, Zjac will discuss the matter in the future if they still disagree. Edit warring and ignoring the points made by other editors was not the answer. DarkKnight2149 01:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ian.thomson: I would give my own suggestion on that, but I have no experience with this user prior to this user prior to this event, so I'll leave the opinions on that matter to those more qualified to give them. I will, however, comment when needed when it comes to discussion on this specific edit war from Hulk (comics). DarkKnight2149 02:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaand his unblock request is just droning on his "I don't like it" reasons for edit warring, completely refusing to address the sockpuppetry or edit warring. At least an article ban on Hulk (and probably a 1rr restriction elsewhere) is starting to seem appropriate, though he is still pissy from the block. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it might seem a bit gloating of me but I would gladly not see him be able to edit any more any Hulk articles since he's clearly way to biased about it.*Trekker (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked Zjec and *Treker for both violating 3RR last week; *Treker quickly apologised, made a good unblock request and was unblocked; AFAIK Zjec said nothing. I'm not going to review the latest unblock request as I've already blocked; however a neutral admin might want to mention this to them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    From the unblock request, the user clearly seems to be missing the point. I had hoped that they would learn from this in order to be more productive in the future, but instead they refuse to see any error in their actions. A topic ban or 1RR would be logical, since this doesn't appear to be Zjec's first rodeo. DarkKnight2149 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zjec appears to be using the 2a02:c7d:5d47:f900::/64 range to edit war. I've blocked it for 60 hours, corresponding to Ian's block on the account. (It'll last a little longer, but meh.) Bishonen | talk 17:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    Aerozeplyn

    User:Aerozeplyn is indefinitely topic banned from all pseudoscience articles, broadly construed (non-admin closure) Muffled Pocketed 09:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Hi Ian, would you reconsider? It looks like you're indefinitely banning me because of past actions. My recent edits on November 2nd have made no violations. I have looked into this, and if I am mistaken, please let me know. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozeplyn (talk • contribs) 06:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: your recent edits on November 2nd were a continuation of the very problems that got you blocked to begin with, cited WP:FRINGE sources that completely failed our reliable sourcing guidelines, were reverted almost immediately, and are a sign that you do not understand science consensus enough to properly handle pseudoscientific topics. You are still welcome to edit within the framework of mainstream science, and doing a good job there could demonstrate that you've learned what scientific consensus is and that you can be trusted to work with pseudoscience articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I guess you're right: nothing to be gained by letting this play out any longer. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:NOTHERE Duyetkaka

    (non-admin closure) Blocked, in the future you can report to WP:AIV. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Addition of unsourced content; User hostile to repeated urgings to adhere to verifiability

    I asked this editor to include citations for her additions on the following two pages: Visa requirements for Venezuelan citizens and Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens. She added aproximately 150 data points in columns titled "Reciprocity" in tables on both those pages, none of which are cited. When I asked her to provide a source she responded as follows: On her own talk page: "Since the answer is merely a "Yes" or "no", I don't see why sourcing of references is required" ; On my talk page: "Reciprocity is just a matter of "Yes" or "No", sourcing of reference isn't required." ; On user:Arjayay's talk page: "I find it ridiculous that undisputable facts have to be sourced with reliable references." She has since deleted the conversation thread from her own talk page.

    This editor has been blocked twice and taken to ANI once over persistent addition of unsourced content. After urging by many other editors to review Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines over the past several months, she still seems intent on ignoring them. She has also tried to use "other stuff exists" to justify the additions to these two pages, something she has done before and been warned about several times before.

    This editor has also accused me of maliciously attacking her in the past and of reverting her most recent edits, both things I have not done. I have always approached this editor under the assumption that she is making contributions in good faith.

    Thanks for looking at this. Ivancurtisivancurtis (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have stopped my edits on those page after hearing the advise user:Arjayay offered to me (which he has told me many times before) and I have acknowledged his explanation. I was getting irritated as User:Ivancurtisivancurtis kept leaving his message on my talk page way too often such that it made me assume that I have committed some sort of seriously illegal offense as I am afraid of getting warnings or even getting blocked/banned from editing as some editors may impose their personal judgments on me without hearing my side of the story, I am really sorry if I seem to be hostile to Ivancurtisivancurtis as I sounded way to selfish or defensive of my actions when questioned by other editors on my talk page in the past. If I have not broken guidelines, other editors wouldn't be leaving their message on my talk page in an attempt to challenge me to explain for the rationale behind every single of my edits. I believe that most edits on Wikipedia requires proper and reliable references but I had the assumption that it doesn't require a reference for Yes and No since it's something that is totally straight forward to me. I have hardly seen any references attached next to a "tick" and "cross" based on my past experience but I could be wrong as well on that. Any of you can have a look at my previous edits and you will realised that not all of my edits involves unsourced materials. In fact, my most recent edits are mostly focused on adding proper references, correcting bare URLs and fixing broken links. I sincerely apologise for causing any misunderstandings here between me and User:Ivancurtisivancurtis. Please forgive me on my actions (stubbornness and stupidity as well) but I encourage any of you here to continue to observe my edits, providing me with guidance and advice in the meantime. Thank you for your understanding and patience here in hearing my perspectives. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Love by N page spamming

    Users Lovebyn00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Nour Aboulela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created very similar, if not the same promotional page ( Love By N and Nour Aboulela ) . Might warrant an IP block. A picture of a dead fish (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (non-admin closure) IP blocked by Bbb23 for one week. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I think it's coherent. Blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Profile101/TrenSpark - Stiffer rangeblock needed, abusing other editors

    Known puppet Profile101 is leaving rather violent messages on their new sock's talk page, mainly aimed at Anna Frodesiak, he is also (still) claiming to be an admin and "if we dont unblock him, he will ban all of us"... Dear oh dear... Nordic Nightfury 12:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    B!SZ revoked talk page access. You might contact a CU for a range block, but sometimes the only thing you can do is request page protection for their favorite targets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RBI is probably best. I visit Singapore occasionally, though it's been a few years - perhaps I should invite him for a Wikipedia social next time I'm there ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well familiar with Profile1. The ranges he has access to are unfortunately far to big to block. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Would it be worth requesting a community site ban for Profile101? Or is he de-facto banned, in which case, the ban template can go on his original user page. Class455 (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The insult he hurled at Nordic Nightfury, calling him a "fucky, disgusting Belly Button", gave me my first laugh of the day. (I'm rather fond of belly buttons myself.) Deor (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    and the insult he hurled at me when he reverted my edit "You delete that section again, i'll throw you in fuck language" made me laugh my fucking head off (sorry for dropping the "F bomb"). How exactly can this person physically throw me in a four lettered word. His insults are meaningless and woudn't hurt even a baby if I'm being brutally honest. Class455 (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There doesn't seem much point in putting any particular template on his user page; that wouldn't stop him. I'd advise revert, block, ignore. He's very fond of attention, and even created an ANI complaint about himself once. Deor, I agree he's not skilled with the rhetoric, and it would be surprising if anybody's feelings were actually hurt by his attempts at hardhitting invective. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • I agree with DENY proponents. Even though that hasn't worked well so far, it seems the sensible choice, especially considering his nature. I shouldn't have even posted at his talk. And do not worry about his posts offending me. Far, far from it, really far, as far as you can get. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree with DENY too then. But if there was a sock attacking pages, and no admins who knew about the case were about, do we report to AIV or SPI? Class455 (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Class455: If the socking isn't immediately obvious or well-known, SPI is always a good choice. GABgab 02:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tina Helme

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

    Seems a pretty blatant, if misguided, attempt at SEO to me. Gricehead (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, it has failed, as User pages are NOINDEXed - Arjayay (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be helpful to point out to them that the {{Index}} template can be used to index pages? RedPanda25 19:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have deleted the userpage per WP:U5, blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    Benjamin Barber

    (non-admin closure) Semi'd by Black Kite for a week. Looks like there is nothing else to do. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Semi-protected for a week (i.e. until after the election). We could block the IPs involved but they're all dynamic, so there's probably not much point. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Richard Madenfort/Rick Marty

    For nine years now, some registered accounts and primarily Pennsylvania IPs have been adding guitarist/producer Richard Madenfort (aka Rick Marty, aka MadDog) to lots of music articles, despite nothing published to support the assertions. There is a real-life person in Pennsylvania who has Facebook photos showing he has been a guitarist in various bands since the late 1980s. The problem here is that his contribution has not been the subject of discussion in reliable sources. I found out about this guy today because of a recent push by some accounts to create redirects for him and to put wikilinks around his name wherever it appears, sending our readers uselessly to the redirects.

    Back in August 2007, Noneof yourbusiness48 put up a biography at Rick marty but it was speedily deleted.[95] The guy continued socking to get his name back in. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noneof yourbusiness48 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive914#IP disruptive editing. Bbb23 served as checkuser and blocking admin.

    Redirects
    Previously deleted
    Involved accounts
    Examples

    I would like to see the redirects deleted as they do not lead our readers to any information about this guy. I would also appreciate some assistance in finding out exactly what legitimate credits this guy has, so that we can remove all the unreferenced and otherwise unsupported listings. I get the feeling we are working with a hoaxer, or at least someone who is padding his resume. From his angle it appears he's frustrated that he has not been given proper credit for his creative work, as suggested in this post. If there's a real biography that we can write, even a barebones stub, then we can establish a defensible page of the guy's known associations and works. That way we can point to a consensus when he tries to add unreferenced stuff. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment @Binksternet: I am cross-posting this from the ANI archive because I would like assistance in removing any listings of Rick Marty or Richard Madenfort from articles. The socks in question have already been blocked, but the content has not yet been reverted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavior of IP user

    In the last few days, 80.63.3.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been displaying a failure to assume good faith to other users, and an apparent lack of knowledge on certain Wikipedia policies. Firstly, he had a small conflict about the inclusion of an infobox for the ISIL territorial claims article ([96] [97]). For the second diff, in his edit summary, he reverted the deletion of the infobox under the reasoning of WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior by opposing users, and that "status quo is kept until something else is decided on the talk page, conclusion was to include an infobox and you should respect that". However, Greyshark09 had earlier informed him after the first diff that "the outcome of the [RfC] discussion says infobox can be included, but which infobox is yet to be decided". Which is true. In other words, the IP user seems to be ignorant of the real meaning of the RfC consensus.

    Secondly, he re-added the 2016 Nice attack article to the List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 after I removed it from said list because it was currently unconfirmed as terrorism. His reasoning for the reversion of my edit? WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior by opposing users. In reality, there have been discussions throughout the Nice attack article's talk page history ([98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]), the latest of which is still ongoing. Clearly there's a huge, ongoing point of debate and contention over whether the Nice attack should be considered as a terrorist attack and not a small conspiracy of Wikipedia users operating under WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

    And finally, I sent a friendly warning template (as I always do) about putting non-constructive edits like the one he did at List of terrorist incidents in July 2016. However, he reverted it and claimed WP:HARASSMENT...even though it was the first time I ever visited his talk page.

    I feel this kind of ignorant behavior, on the part of this IP user, needs to be addressed and I suggest a warning to him at the very least. Parsley Man (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just on the topic of the first part of this report regarding the infobox dispute. There is no consensus as to which infobox is to be included, however, since there was an infobox prior to the first RfC it is status quo to keep it and the consensus currently lies FOR an infobox... . A second RfC should have been opened to decide whether or not to change the infobox to a different type - not wholesale removing of the one already there. Hence I think Greyshark is in the wrong on that one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In DatGuy's own words from the RfC: "There is consensus FOR an infobox to be included in the text. However, there is not yet consensus for which infobox to be put in. I suggest either starting another RfC or starting an informal discussion, notifying the previous voters." Looking at that consensus, one can mistake that kind of wording as also encompassing the original infobox, just like I did. Parsley Man (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that BRD should apply here. If someone disagreed with the current infobox, the IP should discuss it on the talk page to choose which one will fit. Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On the second point Parsley Man, usually what affects one article, affects only that article. The discussion at Talk:2016 Nice attack (which I am a part of) has no bearing on the article at List of terrorist incidents in July 2016. Again, this is something that has to be taken to the talk page, you are both edit-warring on that page. I won't revert if you revert me back, but, I highly recommend you both go to the talk page. Finally on the very last point, yes the IP has a tendency to claim Harrassment where it is not actually happening - that is a problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    At least I did find a problem posed by this user's behavior... Parsley Man (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, it's not your fault. I understand your actions across all pages, it just so happens that I am also involved across all the same pages and see it differently to you. I'm writing up a comment on the List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 page directing them to the Nice attack page. Since you've already done it. Whether or not we get an Orlando shooting proportions "discussion" or not I don't know, I'm not sure Breitbart will be as concerned with this one as with that one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    California Proposition 13 (1978)

    The article appears to be a focus of multiple new registered accounts--my guess is it's a school project--but the edits have included copyright violations and inadequately sourced content, or content sourced to a paywall site. I've reverted one of the copied passages, but given the number of accounts and the dubious nature of some of the additions, I'd appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I removed the copyvio you signaled but that's all I can do right now--I'm watching a game of stickball on TV where blue team was winning but now the others got two points and they have the same number of points. So now I have to eat a hotdog, I think. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't forget the soda! In all seriousness, I have undone two edits for various reasons and will look more into it tomorrow when I am near a computer. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. EEng 03:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor 207.161.217.209 vs Drmies

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

    @FreeKnowledgeCreator: They were reversions that Drmies made on the basis of my being a sockpuppet. While I am shocked that one could have reached that conclusion, I requested to be unblocked and was found to definitely not be the sockpuppet by DeltaQuad via checkuser, hence why I am no longer blocked. Should Drmies' mass reversion not, then, be itself reverted? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC) cc: Dustin V. S.[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=747592847"