Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by P3DRO (talk | contribs) at 23:18, 3 November 2016 (→‎SLBedit disruptive behavior). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

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

    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

    After community input and deliberation over the facts and evidence presented regarding Dinesh D'Souza (as well as interaction and collaboration behavior), this thread can be closed as no action is required. The user that the sanctions have been supported to be placed upon (per WP:AC/DS) has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry, and the community opposed sanctions to be placed upon anyone else. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is a modified version of an earlier Request for Arbitration, which was declined: User:Oneshotofwhiskey openly boasts that he is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. In his own words, he is an activist intending to expose "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)"; this mentality has unsurprisingly caused him to challenge basic tenets of WP:BLP. For example, Oneshotofwhiskey replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot, and accused D'Souza of promoting "conspiracy theory" in the lead. Discussion on the talk page has yielded no consensus in favor of labeling D'Souza a "convicted felon" or "conspiracy theorist"—in fact, despite Oneshotofwhiskey's suggestions to the contrary, he is essentially alone in advocating those changes. (An RfC has since been opened on the "conspiracy theorist" question; the results are mixed but leaning against inclusion.) Nor am I alone in challenging Oneshotofwhiskey's POV-pushing language. Although he has since dropped the mugshot angle, Oneshotofwhiskey has continued to attack Dinesh D'Souza with a tenacity and complete disregard for sources or standards that is really quite shocking. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Oneshotofwhiskey has mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz eight times now ([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]
    @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]

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

    Could someone look at PogingJuan's recent edits?

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

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

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

    Could someone look at this?

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

    • @Dennis Brown: With humility, I've discussed it clearly to User:Hijiri88, but seems he didn't understand or even listen my side on including the sentence on the article (I've added a citation, supporting it), that was not clearly sourced at first. I think, it's because he thinks that I hate him on siding with User:Signedzzz (I have actually looked it as lawyering as Hijiri88 keeps on explaining while Signedzzz do not), whom I and User:RioHondo have problems about the allegations of death threat and NPOV edits of Signedzzz, during the past ANI discussion, Hijiri88 have provided on the OP. I've also sent you a message on your talk page last October 20 (UTC) to request you an insight. Back to the Galing Pook award inclusion now, you may refer to this link. There I have resided my explanation on how that sentence must be included on the article, that then-mayor Duterte also became a key to gender mainstreaming in Davao City and must be credited too. But this Hijiri88 insists that I am reverting his edit because I don't like it and he'll request me to be blocked 1. He did even accuse me of having a political agenda (apparently a WP:CoI) while I haven't any 2. I see hypocrisy there, because Signedzzz, whom he has been lawyering on the unclosed ANI discussion, don't remind him about the obvious WP:CoI as RioHondo have proven. ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown: Did the above answer your question? Can you tell me what the above post (or any of the "clear" "discussion" on the talk page) has to do with ASEAN or the environment? Because I can't figure it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston is taking the lead and I agree with his cautious approach here. That doesn't mean blocks aren't coming, it means he (and I) hope blocks aren't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have fully protected Rodrigo Duterte five days per a request at WP:RFPP. In my opinion, recent edits by several people have been less than optimal. This is a good moment to try to have a calm discussion on the article talk page and get agreement on the things being disputed. Any changes that have consensus can be made during the protection by using the {{Edit fully protected}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: "content dispute and edit-warring"? The closest thing to edit-warring has been PogingJuan's repeated attempts to reinsert a source that has nothing to do with the article content, and that is not a content dispute because it has ... nothing to do with article content. I actually don't give a damn about the article content -- all I know is that at present it looks like crap and is very poorly sourced. Shit. Didn't realize that there actually was a content dispute and edit-war that overshadowed my problem immediately afterward and immediately before your RFPP post. Just looking at what you wrote on RFPP, it looked like you were talking about PogingJuan and me. Sorry for the confusion.
    @EdJohnston: This is not about the Duterte page, and there isn't even a content dispute -- I reported PogingJuan because of his user conduct issues. Telling me that I should discuss "the things being disputed" with PogingJuan is telling me I should endure more harassment and nonsense non sequiturs. I honestly have no idea what things are being disputed. Sorry. Just found out what you were referring to. VanHalen09 and Signedzzz appear to be engaged in an unrelated content dispute and edit war. This has nothing to do with my problem with PogingJuan's constant attacks, attempts to intimidate, templating the regulars, and refusal to listen when I explain to him that inserting random citations with nothing to do with article content is inappropriate. Before I noticed the subsequent bona fide edit war, it also looked like "less than optimal" was referring to my removal of blog-like citations, since they were the only recent edits of substance that I was aware of. Again, apologies for the misunderstanding.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC) (Edited 21:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    Yes, presumably this is about VanHalen09 removing a cited quote claiming that it is not mentioned in the source. After two reverts he admitted that it was in fact in the source and apologised. Dispute over. Then he insisted on moving the quote - about Duterte's personal life - out of the personal life section, and into the "Controversies and criticism" section. I reverted, and asked him to please not move stuff out of the relevant section and into the trivia section. He claimed he wasn't doing that, and did it again anyway. At which point I left him to it. The page block came later on, and makes no sense whatsoever in terms of article content, but certainly shut down this discussion very effectively. zzz (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri 88, PogingJuan is one of the people who forms part of the war. Since you included diffs of edits at Rodrigo Duterte in your complaint, I assume that my protecting that article is a relevant step. At present there is no problem that should keep everyone from joining in discussions at Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. If people can't engage there without personal attacks then admin action might be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have spent the last several weeks trying to discuss with him. Look at the 4000+ word ANI thread that consists primarily of him trying to convince me that the problem was one-sided POV-pushing by Signedzzz. He claimed there were problems with the article, so I stepped in and started trying to fix them. I immediately found. The problems that none of PogingJuan's talk page comments make any sense or properly address the problems (look at his post in this thread), and PogingJuan is extremely aggressive, have nothing to do with article content. I conceded that "Davao city received X award" could stay for the time being and the source that directly supported it could stay as well, but when I tried to remove the other citation that had nothing to do with it, he reverted me twice, and then he started trying to threaten me for "harassing" him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider opening a WP:Request for comment about the Davao City issue at Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. It would be easier for admins to decide who to sanction if we could see at least some people trying to go through the proper steps of WP:Dispute resolution. You made reference to a 4000-word thread here in Archive936 but that was so confusing it's unlikely it could have led to any action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    RFCU was abandoned some years ago. If I have a problem with a user repeatedly posting threatening messages on my talk page, [21][22][23] accusing me of "personal attacks" and "harassment" for removing an out-of-place citation in an article,[24][25], accusing me of "biting" a "newcomer" by reverting a disruptive edit he made and explaining to him how it was disruptive (after he had already threatened me),[26] refactoring and decontextualizing my messages on his talk page,[27] pinging me on his talk page before immediately removing the entire thread so I get a notification that he posted an attack against me but am unable to respond,[28][29][30] refusing to look at the content of my edit or even read the edit summary before reverting me,[31] referring to me diminutively as "bro" and insinuating that I lack common sense,[32] and generally not making any sense in their comments, then ANI is where I am supposed to go to request some more eyes on the problem, no? Whether "Davao City" is synonymous with "Rodrigo Duterte" is irrelevant to these problems, and opening an RFC to deal with it would not solve these problems. I'm all for not biting the newcomers, but when a newcomer is this litigious and aggressive, and after five months and several ANI, ANEW and doesn't seem to understand how to engage in civil discussion, then we should be protecting the experienced editors who don't have the time or energy to come up with creative solutions to getting themselves bitten by aggressive newcomers. I did not come here to request that PogingJuan be blocked -- I would be content with a mentoring solution similar to the TheStrayDog issue that was presented here a few weeks back. But I don't want to do the mentoring myself as (among other reasons) it doesn't look like PogingJuan would be amenable to me being his mentor anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update Apparently PogingJuan is going to pull away from the Duterte article and will reflect on his editing. This is hopefully the end of the issue, and even if it is not I will hopefully not have to be the one to deal with it next time. I find it concerning, though, that even in saying that he realized he was wrong on the article substance he failed to recognize that the bigger problem was his repeatedly inserting of a citation that had nothing to do with the aticle substance. This means that he still doesn't get why this was wrong, and is therefore liable to do it again somewhere else. I don't mind this thread being closed now, since PogingJuan has apparently agreed to stop harassing and threatening me personally, but I still think some mentoring or other oversight would be a good idea going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If I am right, the issue here is about the citation of Galing Pook award that barely names Duterte and therefore inappropriate to include it on the article, isn't it? I have recognized that already, that it was really inappropriate as Duterte was not the recipient, though it was awarded on Davao City under Duterte admin. My explanation on Hijiri88's talk page was based on the same Galing Pook citation, stating "doing good governance is not only about the governors and mayors, but the participation of the people, especially the women" so meaning, the award was not only attributed on Duterte but also his constituents and therefore, it was really inappropriate to include the Galing Pook citation on Duterte article, and so I agree that it may be placed on maybe Government of Davao City or Davao City. And yes, as I said to Hijiri88, I will get rid myself on editing Duterte article temporarily and instead focus on other articles and creating articles for the upcoming Wikipedia Asian Month 2016. I am also really hoping that the problems regarding proper citations and neutrality on Rodrigo Duterte article will be solved. Regards. ~Manila's PogingJuan 18:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. As I have stated numerous times, it's about the citation attached to the Galing Pook award that doesn't mention Duterte or the Galing Pook award at all. It's the one you kept edit-warring over after my concession that the actual statement about the Galing Pook award and its source could stay in the article pending consensus to remove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: Ah that one! The ASEAN Cooperation on Environment source?. Oh my God, so, that is the real problem after all? I'm so stupid that I haven't looked onto your edit. I thought you have reverted it all. And that's why you have said PogingJuan, if you blankly revert me again because you didn't like PART of my edit, I will request that you be blocked per WP:CIR. I really thought you have reverted it all, just because you don't like my edit, due to our opposing views on recently-archived ANI thread. I haven't even thought that you have conceded the sentence, and for that stupidity of mine, I'm really sorry. ~Manila's PogingJuan 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I have just inserted that ASEAN Cooperation on Environment source, because it states in the citation under Awards & Recognitions the The Gender Mainstreaming Program of the Davao City Government chosen as one of the Top 10 Most Outstanding Programs in the Galing Pook Awards in 2004. You may look this screenshot. You may also look it manually at the website (if you're using Windows, you can use CTRL+F). Meaning, I have included that citation as a support citation only. Now, if that is not really necessary, we may not include that citation. Once again, I'm sorry for me barking up the wrong tree. Still, I'm not changing my stance that I will temporarily get rid of editing Duterte article, as it have affected my editing routine. ~Manila's PogingJuan 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
    Holy mother of WP:IDHT. Fine Hijiri, have it your way. I can't make you acknowledge the point I am trying to emphasize here, not if you are determined to keep avoiding it by suggesting I just don't get the situation, even though I've told you that I -have- looked into the circumstances (and have done so in literally every post I've made in this thread, from the first to the most recent). Since I can't convince you to see the issues with that kind of comment and attitude, continue to treat other contributors you are in conflict with in this fashion, if they refuse to "stay out of your way"-- and then take umbrage any time any uninvolved party here tries to point out to you that civility between you and your "opposition" is a two-way street.
    Just bear in mind that a) you're interactions with other editors have been the subject of ANI threads on numerous occasions, leading to more than a few warnings and sanctions, including at least one IBAN that I can recall, b) you were most recently sanctioned by ArbCom, for a contest of wills not altogether dissimilar from this one, in that it involved another editor who you regarded as generally useless to the project, and c) you've been blocked numerous times for a battleground mentality and incivility/PA issues. So you can continue to respond to every single minor criticism you receive here with a staunch and absolutist defense (and always believe that the other party just hasn't looked into the issue well enough to now that you're right), but my genuine advice to you is that maybe you are overdue to pause and question whether some of this advice on how to deal with conflict on this project might just be useful to you. If you can tolerate, for a moment, the notion that there might be room for improvement somewhere in your approach. That's the last of what I have to say on this matter, you can take it or leave it as you wish. Snow let's rap 07:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise:, @Hijiri88: "he had made a veiled threat about people off-wiki seeing the user's edits about death squads and was edit-warring to keep the threat in" Excuse me, this line is getting on my nerves, seriously! That was the point-of-view of User:Signedzzz on our recently-archived ANI thread, but I think, you have missed the point to acknowledge my point-of-view that 'death threatening' Signedzzz was not my intention, when he have said that was my intention. I have already said that 'that was just a reminder that his actions on Wikipedia are recorded on the page history and he may be blocked due to his mass deletion of sourced articles cited by User:RioHondo. You know what? That is the reason why I have blamed you of lawyering Signedzzz. Remember that I may have stopped temporarily editing on Duterte article (due to it affects my editing routine), I may have acknowledged my fault regarding on Galing Pook citation, I may have withdrawn the recently-archived ANI (although I doesn't matter) because I think that will not make Wiki any better as I have posted on your talk page, but my stand will not change that Signedzzz have accused me of death threatening, while I haven't really did that. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it a goddamn break, PogingJuan -- you did say that people off-wiki might see the bit about death-squads, and everyone who looked at it who didn't already agree with you on article agreed it looked like a threat. You should have retracted it and clarified that you did not mean it as a threat, but instead you edit-warred to keep it in exactly as you wrote it. This makes it impossible to interpret as a good-faith mistake. Why the hell are you still even here? I thought you said you were going to leave the Duterte issue alone? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[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]

    Editor is now blocked indef by User:Seraphimblade for persistent disruptive editing. (The apparent autobiography at Basaaya Rocks Peter was deleted twice per A7 and is now salted). Suggest that this report can be closed. We can consider an unblock request if one is posted, and if the user offers to follow policy in the future. He did create the article on Herman Basudde which appears notable, though a lot of non-encyclopedic material had to be removed by others. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[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: [33] [34] and [35]. 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 [36], [37]; it was far too soon; it was not a discussion that even warranted a close (it was not an RfC); there was no obvious consensus; you merely inserted your opinion ("Therefore I personally recommend that ...."); and most of all you do not have nearly enough experience on Wikipedia to be closing discussions. Softlavender (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced the discussion, which MartinZ02 had preemptively archived. MartinZ02, you have far too little experience to be closing discussions, much less ArbCom-enforcement-area discussions. Do not close this again. If you would like to add your suggestion to the bottom of the discussion, feel free. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Softlavender: Actually it was an RfC, but someone removed the RfC tags (which has now been restored by Sparkie82). In fact, it was probably accidentally removed when MartinZ02 closed the RfC. The reason why I and several other users wanted it to be closed early (which WP:RFC says we can do) is because the RfC was going days without any discussion going on. Furthermore, this whole discussion will be moot after election day so we wanted to resolve it way before then in order to prevent edit wars and in part so readers in 2020 would have a consensus to build off of. The 30 days is almost up so could you or someone here please close the RfC either now or when the 30 days is up? Thanks. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, the discussion section was started as an RfC (the tag was apparently inadvertently removed at some point during the time when the discussion was closed/reopened). I've just restored the RfC tag. The RfC was not optimally constructed or promoted. At the time the RfC was initiated, the question at dispute was whether or not to add write-in candidates to the infobox, not whether or not to remove them (see my first comment at the RfC for details), however, the wording of the RfC question was vague on the that point. The RfC (apparently) was initially only promoted to editors who favored adding write-ins, and all those first comments used the term "Keep" which gave the impression that write-ins were already in the infobox, which they were not. I look forward to continuing to work toward a compromise at the RfC (without the challenged edit(s) in the article until a compromise is reached). Also, several editors have subsequently launched a half-dozen or so separate discussions on the same topic and I'm not sure how to handle that as I've asked editors not to do that before at that talk page. To the admins here, should all those extra discussions be closed and editors referred to the initial RfC? Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfC is not very relevant now since the discussion only encompassed Castle and McMullin; other candidates were not added until just before the initial close of the discussion. There are now several other active proposals that consider the other candidates explicitly. I suggest that this RfC should be closed by a new admin sooner rather than later so that we can move on with more current discussion about the additional candidates. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the closing admin needs to carefully review the discussion, linked previous discussions and now parallel discussions spawned by the vague and premature closure of this RfC. Though I voiced support for closure when several days passed without comment, several comments followed, indicating that the discussion was still active. The closure needs to resolve a clear objective standard for inclusion that applies to all candidates in any election cycle. This is the opportunity to set a fair criteria that will carry over to next election cycle. Bcharles (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The overall problem is that nearly all the comments in this RfC were made when only Castle and McMullin were in contention, which makes it inadequate to resolve the issues with the other candidates that arose later. There are about five newer discussions about what to do about them, which all depend on the outcome of this one. Honestly, I think the version of the infobox on the page right now has a fair amount of support as a compromise. Any long-term solution will require a new RfC crafted for the issues discussed after this RfC was initially closed, which is why I suggest having a proper close to this RfC promptly. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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]

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

    He raised this issue on articles' talk page [39], brought this issue to NPOV noticeboard [40], [41] (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 [42] and instructed here [43] (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: [44]. 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. [45] Ian.thomson is helping a lot despite the challenging nature of this matter as I have emphasized in my comment on his talk page [46]. BTW fyi: Ryn78 has buried this vital section [47] ("Reception") in HTML comment so that it does not appear as removal of a lot of valuable content (here is a diff: [48]. 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 [49]. 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]
    What kind of POV? Why it is a POV section? I don't understand. Please explain. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:37, 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]

    Does this diff -

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

    constitute a legal threat?

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

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

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

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

    You really seem intent on starting a fight, don't you? So, to help your 'bogusmeter' with its internal stupidity in understanding what most people can probably see, we can start with 'libel': It is the production of defamatory statements in a permanent medium. Defamation is a statement, which intends to or is reckless about diminishing a person's standing among his peer group. Such a statement can be direct or produce implications, which is quite important here, given the nature of the BLP subject's recent convictions and the general climate about such issues in the UK.

    Here is what he wrote: "Far from being the saintly, unfairly-put-upon actor that you misrepresent him as being, Hofschroer is demonstrably a thoroughly nasty and dishonest piece of work. His response to anyone who disagreed with him or pointed out errors was to accuse them of being mad or a paedophile. It's all in the public domain. At no time has he made any serious effort to address critique of his work, however cogent or well-founded. Instead he relies on suggestible saps and sockpuppets to tut-tut on his behalf about how sad it is that "the kind of people" who criticise him offered "little actual debate or presentation of evidence" who "can't counter his historical arguments with reason". All that is simply sanctimonious untruthful rubbish spouted by Hofschroer and with nil basis in fact. All the above has been put to him, and his response to reasonable challenge is to shriek squalid, hypocritical abuse. It is exctly because he can't win the debate that he resorts to vicious smears.

    If you want to trust his judgment and be his little helper that's your lookout, but the world of Napoleonic enthusiasts is pretty good at debunking lying charlatans (see David Hamilton-Williams, a "historian" who faked an entire archive) and I'm afraid Hofschroer is just another such. Tirailleur (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

    Okay - try: 1)"far from being the saintly, unfairly-put-upon actor that you misrepresent him as being" - at no point did I say this, merely that the behaviour of some of his opponents left a lot to be desired and that a campaign had been whipped up against his original book. It is a statement about my judgement and by implication, how it was affected. 2) After a unpleasant rant about the subject, Tirailleur continues: "If you want to trust his judgement and be his little helper" - now, given that I thought it was right to say I had known the subject for many years (not that I have seen him for 13 years or spoken to him for about 4), what would you say that phrase following on from the rant above implies? Would you like to see yourself attached to a rant like that? I suspect not, so why do you think I should put up with it? 3) As I explained below, the guy is an ignorant clown for libelling me and then failing to realise he was praising me for looking at sourcing incisively.

    So, what is Tirailleur's intent? Well, Waterloo certainly raises the hackles on both sides and the whole aggro (I would not call it a debate) went on for about 10 years - yes, you do have to wonder about some people and past events, but then a bloke did tell me in a pub in 1991 that he "wouldn't have anything said against Elvis". Tirailleur's intent as regards the subject was to discredit his entire output (possibly because it raises other historical questions he finds awkward) and quite clearly to defame anyone else, who pointed out that his own behaviour left much to be desired. I was quite happy to engage in debate about how we view an author's output in the light of unrelated events and/or a specific related episode, but I will not be defamed by some fool with a bizarre agenda. Okay, have I made myself clear enough now? I didn't want to waste anyone's time with a long explanation, but it seems to be what a few want. So, please listen - because if you and Wiki want the kind of nonsense spouted by Tirailleur, don't be too surprised if others say "I am not interested". DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[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]

    Okay, Doug, I was merely trying to indicate my displeasure - it seems you did notice that. That was quite a lot of work and while it is listed as a start article, it is in fact, the current state of knowledge. Now, can I suggest you deal with the original point about the libellous comments made by Tirailleur on the BLP Talk page please? I am not interested in trying to engage in a discussion about how an author's output is dealt with in the light of other events, if you are going to allow libellous comments designed to avoid answering the point. I see however that Tirailleur paraded his own silly behaviour, so I have flagged that up and left it at that. I would prefer that it is removed, something I have been asking for since 31/10. I am not "refusing to be specific", but did not press the detail, simply to avoid a long argument. However, I have now done so above. Now, I would ask that you remove his libellous claims and let everyone else revert to editing or sensible discussion. DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[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]

    That was a really helpful intervention. DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 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]

    Your condescending attitude was what I was talking about - being trained in the law, I do know what a libellous statement is, probably rather better than you. If you bother to read what I wrote, you will see that I objected to the claims made by Tirailleur on that basis and had made my complaint on that basis - precisely because I did not wish to drop the conversation into threats. It seems you fail to grasp this simple concept as you have repeated some nonsense twice now. However as you all seemed so keen that I should take his claims apart (at the risk of a blow-up), I took another look at the page. Oh, Tirailleur has done the job for me by revealing his own stupidity - he praises a review of a book by another author, which pointed out the author had engaged in serious invention and led to that author's disgrace. I have merely pointed out that I was the author of the review, so I am obviously quite capable of dealing with sourcing and taking an objective view of sourcing! Tirailleur should perhaps be excluded, initially, I thought for libellous statements, but maybe just for stupidity.

    I have answered the specific matters above. I trust that when I say I have a legal background and take exception to libellous statements, some people here will take it on board, when I say that the statements are defamatory and as such should be removed as being against Wiki's harassment and libel policies. Then perhaps a few of you will read what I say when I said that I was complaining to Wiki as I did not wish to get into threats, of which I made none. Okay? DaveHMBA (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    We're trying our best to understand the issue, but still failing. You may have a legal background - let us take that as read - but you are not making a good job of explaining the alleged libel. You say "he praises a review of a book by another author, which pointed out the author had engaged in serious invention and led to that author's disgrace. I have merely pointed out that I was the author of the review". Does the kernel of the libel lie in that part of your explanation? If so, I'm not seeing it. You were the author of a review. A review [asserts] that a book author engaged in serious intervention leading to the author's disgrace? But you are the review author, not the disgraced author. It may all be very clear to you. In all honesty, and with the best will in the world, it is not clear to me. Please humour us by explaining some more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Do I have to spell it out again? There are two matters - no.s 1 (statement about my judgement) and 2 (little helper/supporter), which are both libellous. Point 3 was just the proof of how his own agenda is actually blinding him to a rational approach and actually shows his claims (especially No.1) are false. Okay? DaveHMBA (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that Tirailleur seems to think your judgement in this matter sucks. That's his/her opinion. It is not libel for someone to specify that they think your judgement sucks. I agree that Tirailleur says "If you want to ... be his little helper". That's somewhat pissy perhaps, but not libel. One who supports, even in part, the position of another may well be labelled by an antagonist as 'a little helper'. So, no, I'm not seeing libel, at all. I'm seeing you not liking Tirailleur and/or his/her writing, and making an assertion of libel which seems to be wholly groundless. I'm sorry that I do not see things as you do, at least the the extent that it seems to be annoying you. I'm happy to be schooled some more by you as to why any element of Tirailleur writing amounts to libel. I can only say, right now, I'm completely and utterly unconvinced by your libel assertion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[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]
    After this one was blocked, the same editor is back as Special:Contributions/171.7.134.182, doing the same sort of thing, such as this edit. Again needs blocking and reversion. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A block is in order. Please also note that the IP edit summaries are just the name of the article. They are clearly not here to build and encyclopedia.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPer has been changing date formats against MOS:DATETIES in at least one article here. IPer has started using the {{Start date and age}} template in a recent edit. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been using {{Start date and age}} in some edits (not just the most recent ones), but hard coding "... years ago" in many others. He knows the right way, so why is he doing it the wrong way? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated reinsertion of copyvio text

    Editor: 大越古風
    Article: Nguyễn Lưu Hải Đăng
    • Copyvio removed by Metropolitan90 [50]
    • Replaced copyvio text [51]
    • Warned about copyvio [52]
    • Replaced copyvio text after warning [53].
    • Replaced copyvio text second time after warning [54]
    JbhTalk 12:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. JbhTalk 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guto2003

    I got reverted [55] 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: [56]--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]

    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. [57] 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. [58] removing the fact that micro- and macro-evolution have both been observed;
    3. [59] 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. [60] special pleading;
    5. [61], 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. [62] 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]
    • [63] 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".

    [64] [65] [66] [67][68][69][70][71] 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]

    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]

    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 ([72], [73], [74]), 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[75] 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]
    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]
    • Might I suggest you stop blaming others and look in the mirror - The only person at fault here is you!, I have far more productive things to do on here than to get into a mud-slinging match with you. –Davey2010Talk 11:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Javier.alonso.martinez

    the edits blare the SPA and wp:notability alarms.Minimobiler (talk) 21:48, 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]


    • 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 ([76], [77], [78]). 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 ([79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]). 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]
    • Darkknight2149, if it's only one article being affected, the best solution is to request a fairly lengthy semi-protection (which prevents IPs from editing) of the article at WP:RFPP, and cite "persistent IP-hopping sockpuppetry" as your rationale. (That would of course be in addition to reporting the registered account at WP:ANEW if warranted.) Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: I usually only request protection if there's multiple disruptive users on the page or if it's a particularly elusive sock puppeteer. Zjec only seems to be sticking to a specific IP range. DarkKnight2149 17:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[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]

    (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]
    • A suggestion to admins who deal with this one if you recognize who it is - block with talk page access revoked. If he has talk page access, his unblock request is invariably abusive and requires tpa to be revoked anyway, so it will save some time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tina Helme

    (non-admin closure) Userpage deleted by User:Bishonen. The user is now contributing constructively. -- RedPanda25 14:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user Tina Helme has only been editing their userpage (see Special:Contributions/Tina Helme), which seems quite promotional. I am not sure if action needs to be taken, but this might be a case of WP:COI. RedPanda25 18:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[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]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]

    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.[89] 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 ([90] [91]). 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 ([92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]), 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]
    Which he did not seem to do. Parsley Man (talk) 18:03, 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]
    Ahem. EEng 03:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor 207.161.217.209 vs Drmies

    (edit conflict) That's enough of this. Drmies shouldn't have mass reverted 207, and 207 probably shouldn't have mass revered Drmies. Let's just leave well enough alone and go do something productive before this turns toxic. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Someone needs to review the edits being made by 207.161.217.209, and probably block the IP too. The IP has been mass-reverting edits by Drmies, edits which Drmies had been making to undo the changes of a banned editor. I have gone through only a few edits by the IP, reverting some that seemed particularly unhelpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[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]
    No. One might hope that each edit to each article would be assessed on its own merits. Mass reverting every change another editor makes is generally totally inappropriate and could be considered harassment. Other editors can decide whether you are a sock of a banned editor or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, would have hoped those edits would have been assessed on their own merits before being reverted in the first place. So how would you suggest we proceed, FreeKnowledgeCreator? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While you're correct, given that Drmies made an inappropriate mass reversion it should be responded to on equal terms, should it not? In other words, Drmies mass reversion should be reverted. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    207.161.217.209, I suggest, for one thing, that you stop harassing Drmies by reverting all his recent edits, many of which seem justified (I did not look at all of them). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @FreeKnowledgeCreator: It's certainly not harassing Drmies. Did you not notice that I only reverted reversions that he made on the basis of my being a sockpuppet (which has since been disproven)? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And you haven't addressed Mr rnddude's argument. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an argument, it's an assertion, claiming that Drmies' edits were inappropriate but not giving a reason. Given that some at least of Drmies edits look good, you should not have reverted them. Your behavior can be considered harassment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, reason time. Drmies mass reverted an editor's edits on false pretenses. This can equally be considered harrassment, especially with sockpuppetry assertion to boot and a violation of NPA. I am certain Drmies did not act out of any malice, but, it seems he made a mistake. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You hit the nail on the head, Mr rnddude. I have no reason to believe that Drmies did this out of any malice for me personally, but if there were a claim to be made for harassment, I would certainly be on firmer ground than he. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) Would you be able to argue that they are good based on the rationale he gave for them, irrespective of whether that rationale still stands? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

    Snow Rise repeatedly baiting me into violating an IBAN

    [98]

    Snow Rise (talk · contribs) showed up about a week late [99] to an ANI thread involving my (already-resolved) dispute with another user (PogingJuan), and started repeatedly making veiled references to an unrelated IBAN I am subject to that has not been discussed on-wiki for nine months.[100][101] He has admitted to not knowing anything about, or having any interest in assisting with, my dispute with PogingJuan, and his only past interactions with me were over a year ago in the dispute that led to the IBAN.

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

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

    Could someone tell him to cut it out?

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

    This... to put it shortly is a waste of time for both you and Snow. Could someone tell him to cut it out?, yes actually, you can. In a short single sentence that begins with "Snowrise" and ends with "cut it out." Simples. The sub-thread of comments on the PogingJuan thread are a pointless waste of time that have nothing to do with the original complaint or it's merits. Snow Rise, you made your point abundantly clear in your first comment on the thread; Hijiri, that last comment seems excessive and non-constructive. ... I don't think "we're probably better off without you" is in any way helpful ... for anyone. Hijiri can either take the comment to heart, or disregard it. Hijiri, I have to agree with Snow Rise on the general point (about your last comment being excessive) and I assume what they mean when they say you're(sic) interactions with other editors have been the subject of ANI threads on numerous occasions are those threads accessible in AN/I archives; 897, 886, 898, 919, 883 and 895. Generally hounding and battleground mentality, however, all of these are more than six months old. All in all, drop the sticks (both of you) and carry on with something more productive. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) yes actually, you can I considered that, but whether what he is doing is deliberate baiting or he doesn't realize what he's doing, his reply would be "cut what out?", and my replying to that would leave me open to getting blocked for IBAN-violation. I assume what they mean He could only conceivably mean what he says. ANI threads whose "subjects" were my interactions with other editors and which led to "sanctions" for me were all in relation to the IBAN in question and were all from 2014-2015. My defending myself against this kind of attack would violate the IBAN in question. drop the sticks (both of you) and carry on with something more productive That's what I meant by "I will hopefully not have to be the one to deal with it next time [...] I don't mind this thread being closed now"[102] "I'm not going to push it"[103] and "I have better things to do with my time"[104] -- nothing would make me happier than to just go back to building the encyclopedia, and I don't know why Snow Rise keeps trying to drag me back here and keeps bringing up old disputes from over a year ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You might notice that I've tried to leave this discussion already; I made it clear in my last post above that I felt I had failed to get through to him what was inappropriate in that comment to PongingJuan, and that I was leaving the conversation. Hijiri could have left it at that, but apparently my parting comments did not sit well with him, because he then launched this thread, predicated on an absurd accusation of bad faith behaviour. Surely you can see that if I tried to leave my comments where they were, and he has now responded by making an unspported accusation that I am out to get him, I don't have much choice but to respond and to demonstrate how strange and unsupportable that accusation is. With respect, Mr rnddude, I find myself often telling two parties to drop the stick, but I think you'll find that I did not seek this dispute in any way. I simply wanted Hijiri to not malign the general worth of a fellow editor. When it became clear after three posts that I was not making progress in getting him to understand why that was problematic behaviour, I exited that thread (in which I had no personal stake), only to have him show up immediately on my talk page with an ANI notice. Honestly, what would you do in my place? Snow let's rap 11:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise, I more or less understand. I'd be peeved as well if I was dragged to AN/I for little reason. However, I must disagree with this; You might notice that I've tried to leave this discussion already. There is a very simple way to leave any conversation on the internet, just don't respond (your comment was the last in PogingJuan's thread). It's difficult admittedly, I too struggle to just ignore an unfair or blatantly incorrect comment about myself. I feel if I do that I have legitimized the commentor and their comment. So I fully understand why you responded both here in this thread and there in that thread. There is another thing that I personally disagree with doing, but, isn't against any rules that I'm aware of; you're interactions with other editors have been the subject of ANI threads on numerous occasions, leading to more than a few warnings and sanctions, including at least one IBAN that I can recall. Bringing up old disputes, people's block logs, and other punishments enacted (such as IBAN's and TBAN's) isn't necessary, they've done their time let them live out the rest of it in peace. If you think somebody has said something uncivil, bring it up to them and criticize it by all means, but, don't bring up the old stuff along with it unless absolutely necessary - such as a pattern of abuse as part of an AN/I report. Nobody, least of all they, want to see it. It may be best to take complaints such as these to their talk page and, if possible, have a civil discussion over there. Hijiri I just noticed that you responded to me as well; conceivably you can do the same thing I recommended to Snow, just don't respond. I don't think anything needs to come of this thread. I again recommend that you both just turn away from each other, stop responding, and carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I too struggle to just ignore an unfair or blatantly incorrect comment about myself Imagine how I feel, being banned from correcting such unfair and blatantly inaccurate comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I too only noticed you responded to me after already responding to your initial comment. I agree. I would be very happy to simply leave this behind me. But if Snow Rise can jump in to an unrelated ANI thread, refuse to actually read the thread itself, and post a string of inaccurate and unfair comments about my IBAN from last year, I have no reason to believe he won't do it again. It's really, really difficult to let attacks like those (including the ones he has posted in this thread) stand, and I don't want him to do it again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unrelated" to what Hijiri? You seem to be suggesting that we have some past personal history, which is just not true. My response to your comment above (as in past ANI threads) concerned the fact that you were needlessly personalizing a content dispute, to the point of denigrating another editor. I commented as a concerned member of this community, not as anyone who has any reason whatsoever to have an axe to grind against. I criticized you for your conduct, not for who you are. Second, you have seven times repeated this assertion that I commented in that thread without investigating it first, even though I have six times told you otherwise, starting with my very first post in that thread. Pretty ballsy to just keep lying flat out about my conduct like that, when anyone here can just scroll up to check the veracity of your claims. And you should have learned by now that they will--most people who volunteer their time in this space are the detail oriented sort.
    And on that topic of ill-advised confidence that your misrepresentations will go unnoticed, let's look at another assertion you have repeated here several times now--namely that I "posted a string of comments on your IBAN". No. I mentioned it once. In passing, and only to point out that you have a pattern of blowing content disputes out of proportion. How you go from that to "I'm trying to bait you into violating the ban", I don't know. You made "repeatedly mentions my IBAN" assertion when you opened this thread, and you supported it with two diffs: [105][106]. Where's the reference to an IBAN in that first diff, Hijiri? Do you really want to continue down this road? Because that thread is still live on this page; fact checking is going to be super easy for the community here. Snow let's rap 13:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In perfect honesty, the reference to his checkered past was two-fold: 1) I wanted him, in light of his accusation that the other user was useless to this project, to remember that he's been given a lot of WP:ROPE over recent years. And 2) I genuinely thought I might help him identify a pattern of behaviour that he still has not broken (making content disputes far more personal than they need to be, to the point that the community. That's not in any sense a past issue for him; his behaviour in both threads here is fairly demonstrative of that. I didn't say that to him in as many words, but I was genuinely giving him my honest advice, for his own benefit more than anyone's, though I know he will never consider believing that.
    Personally I view this thread as a massive abuse of process and part of a pattern of frivolous filings in this forum that would be well served by a WP:BOOMERANG. But I'm not in a position to make that case, neither time-wise nor with regard to the fact that he has tried to frame me as someone out to get him for....reasons? Even taking myself and my own vexation out of the analysis, some response is called for here: part of the pattern that ArbCom observed when they censured Hijiri was that he likes to threaten to use process to intimidate others. Here's a comment that ArbCom highlighted in their discussion of his problematic behaviour:
    "But don't worry -- I won't post any more GA reassessments for the foreseeable future (even though I have half a dozen already drafted off-wiki) as long as you cease your campaign to get me removed from the project. Immediately." [107]
    And here he is yesterday: "...as long as PogingJuan doesn't get in my way [emphasis added] I don't see any need to pursue any of the above further." [108]
    These are clearly live issues for this editor. He views other editors who he gets in disputes with as obstacles to be removed from his path, and he's more than willing to abuse process as an ends to a means; he broadcasts when he is about to do it in order to try to intimidate other editors away from his territory. You say that referencing past problem behaviour should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. I happen to agree with that perspective--but I can't see how it could possibly not be relevant in light of Hijiri's behaviour in both this and the above thread. Note that Hijiri has been blocked twice for battleground/disruptive behaviour since April--well after the ArbCom ruling for which he was censured for this kind of behaviour. I'm sincerely vexed that he has filed an ANI against me without any evidence of his seriously bizarre assertion, but perhaps it can serve some benefit if it brings his continued reliance on hostility and threats under community scrutiny. I'm not the person to make that case under the circumstances, but I hope someone will seize the initiative. In my opinion, biased as it may be under the circumstances, we are past the point where we can turn a blind eye to this behaviour. Snow let's rap 13:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, SR, please be more brief. I don't have the energy to read through all the above. I'll just respond to the first part: "unrelated" means unrelated to PogingJuan's disruption related the Duterte article. Your comments in the thread showed you were not interested in helping to resolve that problem (your consistent misspelling of "PongingJuan"'s name indicates that you didn't read through the thread carefully), and the only substance in your posts was related to my interactions with you from over a year ago. I would love to correct all the historical revisionism you posted in both that thread and this one, but per the terms of my IBAN I am not allowed, and you are clearly aware of this. This means that the only motivation you could have for constantly dredging it up would be to aggravate me. Why else would you have written I'm familiar enough with your approach to the multiple running feuds? I asked you for clarification of what "multiple running feuds" you were referring to, and you dodged the question. I don't have multiple running feuds, there is only one user I've posted about on ANI more than once in 2016, and you were not involved in either of those threads. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am supposed to be unrelated to the dispute in that sense, if that is in fact what you really intended to suggest. The entire reason this forum exists is to provide the influence of uninvolved parties. It would be useless if only parties to the dispute could comment on it. And why do you insist on continuing to misrepresent my conduct by implying that the bulk (or even a significant portion) of my comments to you were based on your past behaviour. My comments were very clearly focused, from the very start, on your recent behaviour vis-a-vis insulting Poging in the above thread. I don't understand why you keep digging yourself deeper on that, when literally any editor can simply scroll up and see how that discussion actually progressed, and see that I mentioned the IBAN once, in passing, no matter how many time you repeat false claims (and use false diffs to support them). Are you just playing a numbers game, hoping enough people will not check the veracity of your assertions? I'm telling you, that's a losing strategy here under normal circumstances--and in this instance, they aren't even going to need to go to the archive to check your claims against reality. Trying to muddy the waters is a losing strategy here; you're exposed down to your ankles. Snow let's rap 14:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not what I was referring to when I said "unrelated"; your comments were unrelated to the problem at hand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I misread him here, Hijiri is suggesting that for some reason, I picked an editor I have never had a personal dispute with and then tried to bait him into discussing his IBAN, for the sheer joy of seeing him banned. (!?!) If any editor who reads the above thread to which Hijiri is alluding to, they'll see that all that occurred was that I called out Hijiri for behaving in a nonconstructive and borderline incivil fashion towards another editor. Hijiri then proceeded to engage in a series of WP:IDHT responses. He says (in a bold-faced lie) that I admitted to not looking into the matter, but I actually assured him in each and every post that I had reviewed the matter before commenting (this too can be easily confirmed above), and that I agreed with some of what he said, but I still found one comment he had made to be needlessly caustic and too close to a personal attack. I tried to explain to him that, even if dealing with a problem editor, it didn't excuse him to make blanket accusations about their general worth as an editor and that he should keep his comments focused upon specific issues, and to avoid needlessly personalizing the process.
    In my last post (which I made clear would be last comment on the matter, which in my opinion makes this thread feel like a vindictive strike in order to get the last word), I did make reference to the fact that Hijiri ends up here at ANI with VERY problematic frequency-- this as part of an attempt to get him to consider the impact of his behaviour and an extensive history of responding poorly to what the community has tried to tell him about his tendency to make content disputes personal and to then consume countless volunteer hours in trying to separate him from the people who won't (and look for this quote above for the full context) "stay out of his way". But Hijiri, rather than taking my advice (which admittedly were quite critical, but not delivered for personal reasons) at face value, has decided has decided to believe (or at least has chosen to state) that I am trying to bait him into violating his IBAN. I'll trust in the judgment of my fellow editors here to judge just how rational that suggestion is, while noting that Hijiri has opened other threads here in the past with such claims, none of which, to my memory, has ever resulted in a sanction for another editor: [109].
    In no way do I have any interest in getting Hijiri to talk about his IBAN. I never suggested that he should and mentioned the ban only in passing ONCE (not repeatedly as Hijiri says, while citing diffs that do not support his claim) in discussing his general pattern of disruption. Nor could he be banned for talking about it here at ANI, anyway. The simple fact of what occurred here is that I asked Hijiri to reflect on his behaviour and pointed out some facts about the amount of community energy and good will that he has chewed through here in the last few years. He says my comments are unfounded and implies I am coming after him for...well, I'm not sure why? But he seems to think my criticism was personal, so here's what little I know of Hijiri that I can offer by way of explaining why I felt there was a need to get him to scale back the inflammatory comments above:
    • A couple of years ago, I was summoned by a random RfC bot to an intense content dispute between Hijiri and a couple of other editors working in the vein of Japanese culture. This is the same topic area ArbCom finally banned Hijiri from contributing to, some 10 months back, after several years of extended disruption in that topic area, particularly in the vein of "personal attacks and threatening behaviour". I actually agreed with Hijiri on the content issue on that first encounter and supported his position, but this is where I first noticed his tendency to refuse to AGF and to needlessly inflame and personalize disputes.
    • In the months that followed, Hijiri began to show up repeatedly at ANI, either as the subject of threads or as the one starting them, usually surrounding topics of Japanese culture and history and usually involving a perennial dispute with user Catflap08, and a small cadre of other editors who had been pulled into the dispute on either side of Japanese/Korean nationalist issues--these parties were largely the same that ultimately ended up having their behaviour reviewed in the ArbCom case. I want to make clear that at no point was I a party to any of these disputes and would have no cause for personal misgivings; I simply commented as a concerned community member at a few of the AN/ANI threads examining the behaviour of Hijiri and Catflap. At one point an IBAN was proposed between the two, which I recall opposing, as I felt it would only see the two brought back to this thread again and again, since they both refused to leave the same articles and I was certain the IBAN would be gamed.
    • Sure enough, several more ANI threads followed, some started by Hijiri accusing Catflap of violating the IBAN, others vice-versa. Catflap and some of the other personalities involved were hardly blameless in those disputes, but I was left with a memory of Hijiri being particularly prone to refusing to AGF and making some truly bizarre accusations about what he thought the goals of his opposition were.
    • The feud never crossed my path again for about a year, but apparently it continued, because ultimately ArbCom stepped and sanctioned many of the disputants on both sides with broad topic bans, including Hijiri and Catflap.
    And that is the sum total of my experience with Hijiri, until I saw him yesterday telling another editor that the project is "probably better off without him", after said user attempted to make some conciliatory gestures. At no point have I ever been in a content or personal dispute with Hijiri before, so this theory that "I'm trying to lure him into violating his IBAN from two years ago so I can then get him banned, mwahahahaha! *moustache twirl*" is either a demonstration of extreme paranoia or just an effort to respond to criticism through a frivlous use of this forum. There's not really a third possibility in this instance, as I see it, unfortunately. I tried to tell Hijiri something he doesn't want to hear: at some point, when A) your block log looks like this, with blocks for disruptive editing, abusing multiple accounts, personal attacks and harassment, IBAN violations, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and general incivility, B) you have been here for just a couple of years, but have managed to average being the subject of an ANI thread every few months, and C) even ArbCom has censured you for hostile and threatening behaviour, one just might consider that they could show some more restraint in how they respond to conflict and criticism on this project.
    I have been on this project for considerably longer than Hijiri and I have never been blocked, nor so much as received an administrative warning, ever, despite intensive involvement in numerous areas which often invite conflict here. I have never been the subject of an ANI inquiry, until this blatantly retaliatory thread. I consider WP:Civility and WP:AGF our most important policies, and make my comments here with that consideration foremost in mind. So I'm quite happy, knowing the diligence and temperament of my fellow volunteers in this space, in having my conduct (both in the above thread and generally) scrutinized by the community and held up against Hijiri's bizarre implication that I am trying to trick him into violating his ban, for which he has provided no support beyond wild, AGF-violating speculation. I think my conduct in the above thread, and Hijiri's, both speak for themselves.
    I'll not be responding to Hijiri's assertions or comments any further here, but if any other party has any questions about this matter or any of the observations I've made above, feel free to ask. Snow let's rap 11:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to read any more of your 1,000+ word comments, but if by I'll not be responding to Hijiri's assertions or comments any further here you mean you will stop harassing me, then I am happy. We are done here. Good bye. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop trying to rewrite history. I don't know if you accurately remember what happened and are lying, or you are just misremembering because it was all more than a year ago, but I am unable to correct you on the details here, and you should refrain from trying to bait me into trying to correct you. Good bye, and happy editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IBan proposal

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

    • Oppose I have done nothing wrong here, and another restriction that serves no purpose but to be gamed by people who want to get under my skin would make the current problem worse, not better. Also, @Tivanir2:, who on earth are you? You say you have "clashed with me [in] this ANI thread and the one lower on the page", but I have no recollection of ever interacting with you before, the above is your first post on ANI in almost two months, and your first edit in over two weeks. What are you talking about? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not taking a position, but perhaps this will help you recollect your previous interactions with Tivanir2. General Ization Talk 22:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And I must say that, from the timelines that tool supplies, I can find no interaction at all, with your edits and that editor's edits separated in every case (except here) by a number of years. General Ization Talk 22:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing IP on Jimmy Page

    I recently full-protected Jimmy Page's article after an edit war broke out over some unpleasant and potentially BLP-violating content. The conversation on the talk page hasn't really got anywhere except to point out that the main antagonist in the debate, a hopping IPv6 editor, is too trustworthy on using Richard Cole as a source and taking disagreement quite personally. Going forward, I think the article should be long-term pending changes protected when the full-protection expires tonight, but I've stuck my 2c worth on the talk page enough now to think I would be too WP:INVOLVED to take action myself, and would rather another admin did it. (Since the IP changes multiple times a day, I have not notified them on any previous talk page as I don't think it would be read). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Ritchie. For what it is worth, I did not find your contributions too WP:INVOLVED. This controversy has been going on since 2013. From the exchange on the Talk page it is clear that the IP is pushing his own point of view and not here to try and find consensus. Let's ask @Drmies: to glance over it. Karst (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dharmadhyaksha

    No administrative action is needed here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Redirect pages redirect you to the appropriate pages immediately, except where you actively seek out the redirect page. It is not necessary to place WP:Project banners on redirect pages, they are rarely used for any purpose except to direct readers and editors to the page the want to go to. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is not necessary, but they are helpful is articles alerts, WikiProject watchlist, etc. Pratyush (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You have been given logical explanations by me and @SpacemanSpiff: at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#Littering... which you do not want to hear/understand. I have not tagged a single "File talk:" domain page where file existed here on en wiki; unlike what you falsely claim in your opening statement. "Targeted file" were not your creation. In fact, no files have been targeted at all. Targets have been talk pages of files that were your creations only for sticking banners of WikiProject India/Bihar/Mithila/Patna. Please assume good faith; whatever be "my" reasons of nominations are immaterial as long as the reasons are found suitable by community and multiple admins who have already deleted a large lot of tagged pages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SpacemanSpiff is your long time Wikifriend. Their opinion has high chances of bias. Files were a typo, the first line itself says Talk pages are being deleted. Project banners were placed in good faith and they are useful in many ways. Pratyush (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion on Spaceman's Talk page only proves there was nothing wrong with my edits. Both Spaceman and you were not able to answer why my edits are wrong. Pratyush (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are accusing an admin of malpractices you should provide evidences with rational reasoning based on policies/guidelines. Even if your bannering was done in good faith that is no reason to keep it to appease you or something. I have heard it plenty times for now how your edits were "useful" but evidently neither me or others are finding in useful. You were asked to explain their usefulness but instead you simply stuck up some wikilink that made no sense as a reply. Additionally, I will request you to keep all concerned discussion now just on this page and not take it elsewhere for simplicity of all users. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Issue with removal of cited content

    Content dispute. Usual methods of resolution apply. ANI ain't one of 'em.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 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've had an issue finding a common ground with @K.e.coffman: - this editor made many edits/reversions to Nutanix based on WP:PROMO which I found to be pretty bold, but through discussion I have attempted to find common ground in removing content that does fit WP:PROMO (see here Talk:Nutanix#Not_promotional). My issue is that this editor appears to always simply revert to their version, citing it is less promotional - this version has also removed reliable sourced information, that, when added back, this editor simply removes citing the same original point. I have reached an impasse and cannot find a way to work with this editor, even after attempting numerous times to find common ground and a way to work the material without removing such a substantial amount. My issue is not with restructuring the article and removing any promotional pieces, but this should not be at the expense of reliable information that adds to the article. Comments? Garchy (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Three comments:
    1. This is a content dispute and a cursory read of the talk-page suggests consensus is against your position
    2. This is WP:ANI, which is not intended to solicit comments, but to request admin action based on an editors behavior.
    3. Please read WP:DISPUTE. Also read WP:BOOMERANG.
    HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I did post this in the wrong area. I don't think I'm shooting myself in the foot - consensus on the page is to remove promotional material, my issue is the non-promotional material that was tossed into the edit. Garchy (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Alleged disruptive contributions in AFD

    Editor USER:J. M. Pearson has made what I believe to be multiple disruptive edits and several personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Gerry and a few other discussions. I would appreciate a review from a non-involved admin.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. For some reason my computer didn't load all those when I was looking through his contributions the first time. Struck the sock comment (looked like mostly disruptive AfD behavior to me at the time). Agree here. Civility warnings are the way to go I think. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He's made another comment at the Afd that he's aware of this discussion and seems to take it as some kind of badge of honour. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also made several comments implying that WP editors are paid, and that one voter on the AfD is a COI editor. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated disruptive editing by IP user: 181.230.46.29

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

    FYI, if you file a report here you are expected to use the notification template from the top of the page. Especially new or passing editors, likely have no idea this board exists, and may not know what "I'm reporting you to an admin" means. I took care of it, but something to keep in mind of you end up having to come back here in the future. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned the IP for edit warring. While the edits on the article surely don't measure up to the frequency per 3RR, the fact that back-and-fourth reverts are occurring repeatedly and without discussion constitutes edit warring in my book. This will hopefully get the user to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, or otherwise collaborate. If it doesn't, and the user continues after being warned, let one of us know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    SLBedit disruptive behavior

    This user is constantly reverting my edits, harassing me in talk pages and is constantly preventing my contributes. It looks like he s always chasing my edits to revert them. He acts like a child, always wanting to do the last edit, other users contributions in SL Benfica related pages are always wrong, he reverts my and other users edits and then writes similar information he just reverted.

    When he reverts my work he always says to talk on the talk page but he never does that. He just reverts the edits without talking first. Other users need to discuss first, he can revert any time he wants.

    This user disrespects other users contributions, and does not respect the assuming good faith principle and he is always starting edit wars with me and other users like Besteirense (talk · contribs). He has a provocative attitude, and thinks he is always right in his edits, he does not respect other users.

    He was banned in July due to being constantly breaking the three-revert rule. Looks like he didn't learn. P3DRO (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dennis Brown and Callmemirela: First of all, P3DRO was also blocked. Secondly, another baseless accusation to the record. About P3DRO: read this recent incident and the consequent warning. SLBedit (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dennis Brown, I understood your warning and I stopped my comments in this user's talk page. But he continues to harass me, reverting my work. Also, he does not denies anything that I said. I have proof that he reverts other people work without any reason at all, just so he can make the last edit. Also, one time he lied about me not putting references. P3DRO (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a 10 year old wikipedian and I'm seriously considering leaving this place due to this user's behavior. I do not have time to his lack of respect and good faith and childish attitude. P3DRO (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This complaint will be ignored if you do not provide any evidence from your side. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is my evidence:

    • On 1 September 2014, SLBedit was warned for breaking the 3RR.
    • On 10 January 2015, user Wackelkopp (talk · contribs) reported SLBedit for his edit-warring behavior.
    • On 2 June 2015, SLB edit reported PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) for his edit wars and his breaking of the 3RR. The same happened on 18 July 2016 with user Italia2006 (talk · contribs) and later with me. This is his game, he starts edit wars and makes users break the 3RR so he can report them.
    • On 6 July 2015, Oldstone James (talk · contribs) reported SLBedit.
    • On 27 June 2016‎ this user reverted my work in the S.L. Benfica Juniors page.
    • On 21 July 2016, I updated Benfica's technical staff on this page with a source from zerozero, a trustworthy website. He said I didn't put a refernece (when I add put it) only to report me. He reported me based on a LIE!
    • On the same page, a kid from Benfica played a friedly match and I updated the squad box. He reverted my edit and edited the page himself with the same info. I warned him in his talk page and he ignored me.
    • On the same day he starded a edit war with me.
    • On 28 September 2016 he reverted Besteirense (talk · contribs) without any reason. He later used some sadly excuse ("Fooled by UEFA website") just so he could edit the same information he had reverted.
    • On 30 August 2016 I deleted unwanted information from one Benfica player page. He started a edit war, said to discuss the information in the talk page. I wrote in his talk page and he stoped reverting me.
    • On 25 October he reverted my edit in the Benfica U19s page and didn't want to discuss it on the talk page.
    • On the same day he misjudged my words and reported me. He assumed my words were pejorative when they were not.
    • On 30 October I starded a discussion on that page's talk section with four other users. SLBedit came to the page with harassing me with ironys. He had reported me for my words in his talk page while he was always ignoring me however he felt injured when I ignored him and went crying to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football so everyone could see. What a childish behavior.
    • On 1 November, user Threeohsix (talk · contribs) made a complaint abou him being a warmonger.
    • Today he reverted me two times in the U19s page. Also with the same comment about my needing to talk in the TP when he never does that.

    He thinks he his the voice of the reason, others need to talk in the talk page but he can revert when he wants. He does not respect other people's opinion, he starts edit-wars. He his currently harasing me and other users who also edit on SL Benfica stuff with his reverts. P3DRO (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Arthur Norton

    I have asked Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) three times not to prejudge the result of an RfC at Template talk:Marriage#End,[110][111][112] but contrary to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding is continuing to impose his preferred format[113]. I wish to recommend a community topic ban on editing, adding or removing the end parameter in transclusions of Template:Marriage until the conclusion of the RfC. DrKay (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=747713345"