Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

On blocking User:Muhd FUad and his other accounts

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

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

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

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

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

I came across this via the article Getter Saar. Look at [1]. Yes, it is poorly written and contains unimportant information but it is sourced (though not referenced according to the rules) and it is not obvious it should be deleted. The only reason why it was deleted (even after substantial revisions by other wikipedists) is that the author has (or is thought to have) several accounts. And the only ever reproach (as far as I know) was that notability had not been established by the original author, not even bad writing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute about page Expulsion of Cham Albanians

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

Note: In addition to me and Mediator Anthony Appleyard, also Mediator User:Iazyges agrees with us on a block: [2] -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Note: I shall clarify that when I said "block" (above in my previous comment), I meant "ban" and not account block or whatever. Robert McClenon was very kind to explain the difference between bans and blocks on my Talk page [3]. My apologies for the initial confusion of terms ban/block.

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

I have requested Arbitration Enforcement against DWB here [4]. Athenean (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I request that the current discussion is closed now, since the case is taken to the AE by the User:Athenean at: [5]. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Could there please be a mass revert of these moves?

I am notifying MidasHotel20 of this ANI discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at his page moves in more detail, I see this is about much more than place names. His incorrect page moves include Category:People from Fukuoka (city) (reverted), capitalisation changes ("Kōri no ue ni Tatsu yō ni" → "Kōri no Ue ni Tatsu Yō ni" reverted), wrong changes to people's names (WP:BLP applies to Mai Satoda (reverted), Mikiyo Ohno (not yet reverted), Chieko Nohno (not yet reverted), Maki Ohguro reverted), erroneous place names Gotemba, Shizuoka (reverted), wrong names Sumitomo Masatomo (not yet reverted). Editing [6] while logged in and also editing [7] while logged out via an IP address in Makati city, the Philippines (Seiko Hashimoto). I could go on. This pattern of disruptive edits needs to stop. He needs to listen and communicate. 85.255.234.4 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creation of new WP:ARBPIA article but not eligible user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rangeblocks needed for LTA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2001:8003:2435:8600::/64

49.180.128.0/18

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Lalapappa

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

User:Norden1990 - personal attacks, civility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: (1) There is an ongoing discussion on the relevant Talk page about the core of the above debate here: Talk:Nyitra County#Edit warring - names. The discussion was initiated by Ditinili ([8]) after I reminded him WP:3RR on his Talk page ([9]). (2) Just before Norden1990's above cited message, Ditinili made a remark of the "autochthonous" population of a territory when referring to the Slovaks [10]. An ethnic Hungarian editor with roots in Slovakia can easily regard the reference to the allegedly "authochtonous" Slovaks as a highly offensive statement because it implicitly makes a difference between the Slovaks and the Hungarians (although both peoples' ancestors are early medieval/medieval newcommers in the region). Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing offensive in the word "autochtonous". Ditinili (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you refer to the local Hungarians or Germans when using the word? Borsoka (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I did not. Norden1990 for some reason removed the historic Slovak name of the historic administrative unit (by the way, on the territory of present-day Slovakia). When I asked why, he answered (letter for letter) "There is no "historic Slovak name"." Somebody said that "This users contributions have a pattern of nationalism and bigotry." This is nice example. Thereafter, I said: "I am really surprised that you believe that the autochthonous population living in some territory did not have a native name for the territory." Nothing more or less. This is "highly offensive statement"? Wow. --Ditinili (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is, "of course". It makes a distinction between peoples living in the territory side by side for more than a millenium. Taking into account that Germanic peoples had lived in the same territory for centuries before the arrival of the first Slavic-speaking groups, the expression is, let's say, a little bit biased, if we want to avoid to use the expression chauvinist. Borsoka (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry? User:Norden1990 removes Slovak names without any reason, he says that such names even do not exist (?!) and the language was invented only in the 19 century (?!) (by the way, all these Norden1990's arguments are myths popular among Hungarian extremists) and I allegedly offended him, because I did not mention Hungarians and Germans whose names were not disputed? --Ditinili (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Going over the page history, this looks like the edit (followed by this response and this), where things began to go wrong. Anyone who can, please correct me if I'm describing the languages incorrectly: I don't speak them.

• The first edit (by KIENGIR) removes Slovak names from some places where both Hungarian and Slovak were given, replaces other Slovak names with Hungarian names entirely, and then adds Hungarian names in parentheses to a few more. KIENGIR provides no edit summary.
• Norden reverts, restoring all Slovak names, but also deleting some of the added Hungarian names.
• After KIENGIR reverts, Ditinili repeats Norden's edit.
• Later, Ditinili adds some historical content but in the process removes some Hungarian names or shifts them to "last on the list." Norden reverts to remove many non-Hungarian names. Edit war ensues about whether Hungarian or Slovak names should appear first, second, or at all.

I can't really say anybody looks good coming out of this - it appears to be a straight up ethnic/liguistic/nationalist edit war where every party is wearing their partisanship on their sleeve. I find this kind of nationalist editing - which is worst in the EE area - to be poisonous. -Darouet (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Slovak names were removed diff

Removed again diff

Restored by me diff. Note that I did not remove any Hungarian name, I simply reverted a whole trial to remove Slovak names "en block" (maybe, this was a mistake).

I fixed some inaccuracies diff

Another trial to remove Slovak names diff

I did not anything else only reverted it diff

I added the modern name per WP:Geographic naming convention diff

I added some content diff, diff

Some Slovak names were removed again diff, other were Hungarian added (I am OK with HU names, I am only curious why they are systematically used on the first place even if Hungarian language had none special status in the region for most of history (90%) and the territory lies in present-day Slovakia. In the meantime, just a mention about Slovak names or using modern names on the first place instead of Hungarian led to this reaction diff, where Kiengir came with a false accusation that "Recently almost all Hungarian names were deleted" theories about "clear anti-Hungarian aim", etc. Instead of fighting, I began to discuss.

Norden1990 removed some content as alleged original research diff

I restored the content because it is not OR and I proposed a discussion diff

Norden1990 accused me of vandalism (???) and removed content again diff

I restored the last version before the conflict and I opened a discussion instead of reverts diff

From this moment, I did not change, revert or remove anything except minor improvement of sources diff.

Instead of a rational discussion, attacks and uncivilities mentioned above followed.

Note, that I did not remove any Hungarian name (except reverted commits when somebody tried to remove other than Hungarian names) and I also repeatedly declared that I am absolutely OK with them. Ditinili (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I could accept that you removed Hungarian names accidentally: I was wondering, when going through the diffs, to what extent everyone was even monitoring exactly what they were reverting. I would also note that, with the exception of those (possibly accidental) Hungarian name removals, your edits have intended to include more names - which is probably the solution to this dispute. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that I was mentioned, but nobody warned me about this. Thus I have a reaction, I will answer soon.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

I do not want to respond Ditinili's baseless accusations (as he had no valid arguments in our debate, immediately turned to the administrators), everyone can check his harmful activity in Wikipedia through his talkpage: edit warrings, discretionary sanctions etc.

• @Amin:, still I don't understand your problem. I've just reverted your edit, when you put an obviously copyvio image to the infobox. Now it is clear, you are not aware of CC license system. If anyone, I know at my own expense, the avoidance of copyviolation is the most important fundamental pillar of Wikipedia.
• @Peacemaker67:, I was right, which proves that you had to significantly modify the blurb in accordance with my remarks. Then you did not understand that I had problem only with the one-sided blurb... and not the article itself. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

- I totally agree with Psychonaut's opinion. Well, the first two disputed lines better reffered to a considered pattern of activity, the third is better a historical matter of discussion than a directed personal attack, the last "accusation" was referring on the will to generate an incident, moreover the "removal of sourced text" is not belonging to the category of "WP:Civility or Personal attack", it's a content dispute regarding an ongoing discussion on the relevant talk page already made, in such case the version before the dispute is restored in order to avoid and escalate to a possible edit war. Definitely wee see the parties did not remain "cool" and better get "hot" and their discussion became a little bit emotional and harsh, but also regarding the guidelines of WP:Civility - Dealing with civility point 7. should have been applied possibly instead of an ANI incident, since despite Ditinili and Norden had a "hot chat" in the talk page their continous edits did not disrupt the article but improved on that matter, however for a longer time the stress cumulated apparently

- Regarding the two comments before Psychonaut's opinion, I think they are a too early judgements without seeing the discussion and the happenings on the whole.

- Regarding "historic Slovak names" we have to make a distinction if it is about the former administrative units of Hungary, or it's about a county that existed during the Czeshoslovak period and the article mentions or refers to it. As I saw, this was one of the main point of Ditinili's and Norden's dispute. Until it is not discussed that i.e. an own page should be created for the latter, we cannot solve this necessarily right now

- Regarding Darouet's highlighted diffs, I have to add that I can assure "Hungarian nationalism" was not a motivation, all the details anyway can be read - though very long discussion -. Moreover, I and Norden had a previous misunderstanding instantly but also after some communcation this went away, so with Norden we did not necessarily reverted fully our edits, but after discussion we put a form with no dispute from our side. The main thing was that the historical counties have relevantly an official name relevant listed as neighbors, but regarding the cities, communes also Hungarian and modern-day names should be listed since the earlier mentioned does not have a modern name -> Only after this came later the discussion and the happenings with Ditinili -> again after a time, Ditinili's and Nordens dispute regarding an other case emerged, and this lead to continous edits again that in reality not affected the earlier discussion ongoing.

- Regarding Ditinili's highlighted diff-history, he spares that the non-county affected modern(=Slovak) names was re-added by me after the misunderstanding with Norden, on the other hand in his presentation he just identifies his two reverts - by removing Hungarian names - as a normal act, although he could have solved it in a much more better way like i.e. by his following additions also put back the Hungarian names. However, his infobox or added history and Czechoslovak period was not mainly affected by me. Moreover, on the talk page more times I answered and demonstrated to him why in medieval times the administration should be confused with the modern-era's official language status, and also the consensus of naming conventions that is also allowing Hungarian names in the first place, since it is normal because the article's context is about Hungary that is such natural like other countries nation's articles in the relevant period, present-day status quo does not matter really regarding this.

- I did not made any "false accusation", I wrote to an Administrator asking him to protect the article since I saw a possible escalating problem and also I told my concern that what patterns I am suspecting regarding earlier bad experiences. Btw. "Recently almost all Hungarian names were deleted" was also a fact in that moment.

- "Note, that I did not remove any Hungarian name (except reverted commits when somebody tried to remove other than Hungarian names) and I also repeatedly declared that I am absolutely OK with them" -> This argumentation we may accept because of the a posteriori happenings, however the second part of the sentence became considered valid or reinforced after a longer time of discussion, that anyway was filled with many misunderstandings.

- Darouet, I personally gave more names and tried to fulfill all demands possible, even I offered gestures in some cases, just see how many names are now present, so this is not a problem

- However, my suggestion is - since we have and Administrator who is continously watching the page that the two parties (Ditinili / Norden) should return to the discussion page, and if any case anything would arise that would be totally improper, the Administrator surely will intervene. None of involved parties consider the state of edit war regarding the Árva County article

- I did not react on everything, mainly if I was mentioned or also involved or I considered something relevant, but I have the suggestion also that this discussion should remain mainly in it's frame and topic, I have no intention to generate here a longer discussion/conflict/stress with anyone.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC))

My view is that Norden should just be admonished to assume good faith, and maybe wait 24 hours before responding or reverting in what they consider a contentious issue. And all of you should tread very, very lightly when choosing to list place names for historical counties or jurisdictions that belong to a host of past and present ethno-linguistic groups. KIENGIR, Norden, if you find yourselves thinking "This is a Hungarian, not a Slovak place," etc., write both names out of caution. -Darouet (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, I tend to accept your approach. However, I would be glad if you explain what you mean when writing about "nationalist editing - which is worst in the EE area"? As an "East" European editor, living in a extremely poor and unhappy country, I possibly have not had a chance to realize that my homeland is situated in the most nationalistic area of the world. Sorry, but we can rarely use internet, because East German secret agents are watching us. We are forbidden to hear modern music (like Elvis Presley and the Beatles) and we have to wear uniforms. I am pretty sure that only government propaganda suggests us that there are areas in the world (including Europe) where people have been killing each other for decades because of their nationality. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I'm sorry @Borsoka: I'm not denigrating eastern Europe or its people, just stating that here on wikipedia, nationalist EE-related edit wars are notorious, e.g. WP:ARBEE. -Darouet (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It would make sense to warn Norden about ARBEE if they haven't already been. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, however, I also indicated this before, Hungary is in Central-Europe, not Eastern-Europe, and also among other's I've made claims to make a distinction and unfotunately many articles are under "Wikiproject Eastern European countries", although it is geographically also totally wrong, has the same pattern like i.e. nowadays politicians mix the phrases "Central-Eastern-Europe" or "Eastern-Central-Europe" or they make this distinction regarding the former Iron Wall. Hungary now and then was always a Central-European country. I have to repeat again, that also Me or Norden added modern(=Slovak) names or even other versions, forms, where it is wisely applicable. This incident was generated not because of this anyway, but a clash on an other dispute of the two parties.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC))

I definitely support mentioning both names. What name should be the first and why is a content dispute out of scope of this incident. However, what is unacceptable according to my opinion:

- the opinion that just mentioning the second name is clear "anti-Hungarian aim", "proof of anti-Hungarian activities", labels like "chauvinist", "anti-Hungarian campaign", "dangerous behavior", labeling other opinions as "strange insanities or alternative history", "great wish of some with deep anti-Hungarian aims", "one of the greatest insanities ever invented or heard", etc, etc, etc diff

- extreme nationalistic statements like my language did not exist until the 19th century and then it was invented by somebody, that none historic names in my language existed, etc. This should not have any place here and should be stopped immediately. Ditinili (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I just react on those that you addressed to me on the diff. As I told also on the talk page, if I tell my opinion about a view it is not an attack, everyone has the right to tell an opinion about a theory, concept, approach, patterns of activity. You also. Anyway, this is again not the subject of the current incident.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC))

What did I allegedly "address to you"?

Here are my descriptions:

14:31, 11 October 2016 WP:English (What is the "official" name? The administrative language was Latin, later DE, then HU and finally SK)

04:29, 12 October 2016‎ WP: Naming conventions (geographic names)

Absolutely neutral, apolitical, unbiased and civil comments. Ditinili (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

We misunderstand each other again. I just spoke about the diff in your last comment.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC))

Ok, I understand. Anyway, you should stop calling other opinions "anti-Hungarian", "insane", etc, whenever you have a different opinion. Ditinili (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I said, it is not necessarily connected my person, i.e. there are some theories and concepts well-known or analyzed even by scholars or historians anyway, so in such cases any opinon is not necessarily a one-sided personal manifestation. There are theories that are considered very harshly unscientific or even ridicoulus because of lack of evidence or better contradictive counter-evidence. So long obscenity is not the matter, everyone may tell freely an opinion, censorship, or the freedom of evaluation and speech is not an option.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC))

Just for clarity, ARBEE relates to Eastern Europe, broadly construed. Which means Slovakia and Hungary topics are included, whether they are Central Eastern European, Eastern Central European or some other combination. Unless you are claiming these areas are in Western Europe? Many would claim Hungary is not in the Balkans, but many Hungary-related pages fall under ARBMAC. That is how "broadly construed" works. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Definetely not claiming Western-Europe, just you have to understand this broadly construed split of Europe that has also a very releavant heritage because of the Communism is disturbant as also the geographical reality, the latter as strictly being precise or accurate, thus personally I will always have a disturbance because of this. Cheers,(KIENGIR (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC))

Such distinctions are less than obvious to the uninitiated, and are the subject of much attempted wikilawyering. Suffice to say, all those involved in this dispute need to be aware that ARBEE applies to them and their edits, and discretionary sanctions can be applied as a result of poor wikibehaviour on these pages. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot III not working properly at all

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

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

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

I think the correct venue would be Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

SlitherioFan2016 Socking/edit-warring/using misleading edit summaries

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

---

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

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

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

• October 9: [11], reverted by Robevans123
• October 10: [12] (with the plea that "Maybe editing of the color code could be postponed till after the survey?", although he obviously means this to apply to everyone but himself)
• October 16: [13] (changes the black text on orange scheme to a low contrast white text on orange scheme. Reverted by Eyesnore.
• October 23: [14] (radical new color scheme not proposed at all at the RFC, but helpfully suggests "You may comment on my talk page telling me what you think of this "proposed" color scheme.") Reverted by me.
• October 23: [15] (white on orange again) and [16] (new color scheme), reverted by Pppery and me.
• October 24: [17] (states "Restored descriptive notes but kept existing color scheme"). His edit summary is categorically UNTRUE. He undertook substantial changes to the color scheme by reintroducing the white text on orange background. Reverted by me once again, and I explain at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#Orange.2Fwhite_combo why white text on an orange background is a poor idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muttahida Qaumi Movement

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Creepy, obscene and nonsensical edit summaries

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The user was accused AND FOUND GUILTY OF Sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pikipaki2222/Archive for the results. The user repeatedly accuses me of trying to block them. I reported them for sock puppetry one time and was correct. Despite it being explained multiple times, they still seem to believe I blocked them despite the fact that I am not an admin and thus am not capable of blocking them.
• The most recent attempts to add references (see this diff) was a problem for multiple reasons. First of all, it introduced massive images into the reference section which is of course not the way to reference things. But additionally, these images appear to be either scans or photos of a newspaper. They contain images that were printed in the paper, which as understand it, is a WP:COPYVIO. You can't take an image that was printed in a newspaper and upload it to Wikipedia anymore that I could download an image from CNN.com and upload it (without permission).
• Despite the user's claim that they do not have a WP:COI, the ONLY edits they have made on Wikipedia have been related to this article. They even created a WP:SOCK to make edits to the article. I find it hard to believe no WP:COI exist. The user has also turned around and accused ME of having a conflict of interest. (see [22]). 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. ([23] for example). I would ask that this claim be supported with even a single diff where I have "threatened" in any way, shape or form. I have placed templated warnings on the user's page using WP:TWINKLE when they have violated policies, such as WP:INFOBOXIMAGE but these are NOT threats and to suggest they are is wildly inappropriate and an attempt to cast aspersions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Threats by user Janthana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many unsourced, unexplained data changes

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stealth offsite canvassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the end of my !vote in the RfC, I included my opinion that a "no consensus" close should mean no content in this situation.[24] I think I'm allowed to make such a suggestion—the closer is free to disregard it—but Bastun said it was part of an attempt to "poison the well".[25] WTF? This is part of a pattern of WP:AGF failure by both editors.

Bastun started a subsection in the RfC to challenge its legitimacy.[26] This is obviously highly visible, being in the table of contents, but there has been no support for the claim in about 36 hours. And yet they persist elsewhere on the page, apparently not understanding what "no support" means at Wikipedia.

I have repeatedly tried to address this situation using reason, and this approach has failed. Soham321's current position is effectively "Take me to ANI or shut up".[27] This leaves me little choice. ANI complaints should be last resorts, but I don't know what steps I have skipped here. I think I've done everything possible except beg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of reliable sources

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by User:Bastun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I posted a comment on their talk page[28] and they collapsed it referring to me as a "troll".[29] I have never trolled in my Wikipedia career. WP:BATTLEGROUND applies. That's a policy vio as you know. Word "troll" removed 26 minutes later,[30] and 21 minutes after I posted this initial comment.[31] User's behavior shows marked improvement when they are at risk of sanction. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Meanwhile I was amused - while you guys yell at each other and try to get each other topic-banned - to see the Washington Post describe that very talk page as a "somewhat orderly debate" where people can have "mostly sane, mostly productive conversations that mostly converge to a version of the truth."[32] Does that not shame any of you into trying to work this out - go back to the talk page and try to engage in good faith, maybe settle on some kind of compromise wording that would mention the disputed material in a way you all most of you could agree on? I actually do see Bastun and CaroleHenson doing a little of that today - having a cordial discussion, trying to understand the other person's point of view. That's what I recommend. The alternative is for ANI to just exclaim with Mercutio, "A plague on both your houses!" MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose ban or block for Soham321

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

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

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

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

Gaming the system

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

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

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

In diff3, Bastun writes:

So, keep out verifiable content until after the election?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:JJMC89 has been hampering progress I've been trying to make at the article Demetrios Alexatos for a week. Putting it up for AFD is one thing, an honest action users take all the time. This goes further, includes canvassing and borders on Wikihounding (normally that applies to more than one article, but in this case "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." has certainly been the case. [33] [34] [35] removing dates of birth and death [36] I've caught User:JJMC89 twice canvassing a single user-per Wikipedia:Canvassing "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." [37] [38]

I have twice asked this user for an explanation of their motives and intent as regards this article, as they block or undo any improvement to it. [39] [40]

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

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

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

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

This report is starting to stale out. Unless anyone has any additional comments or input, or objects otherwise, I'm prepared to close this and decline action. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of cooperation by User:Xboxmanwar

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits by 70.75.13.251

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oneshotofwhiskey and Dinesh D'Souza

This is a modified version of an earlier Request for Arbitration, which was declined: User:Oneshotofwhiskey openly boasts that he is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. In his own words, he is an activist intending to expose "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)"; this mentality has unsurprisingly caused him to challenge basic tenets of WP:BLP. For example, Oneshotofwhiskey replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot, and accused D'Souza of promoting "conspiracy theory" in the lead. Discussion on the talk page has yielded no consensus in favor of labeling D'Souza a "convicted felon" or "conspiracy theorist"—in fact, despite Oneshotofwhiskey's suggestions to the contrary, he is essentially alone in advocating those changes. (An RfC has since been opened on the "conspiracy theorist" question; the results are mixed but leaning against inclusion.) Nor am I alone in challenging Oneshotofwhiskey's POV-pushing language. Although he has since dropped the mugshot angle, Oneshotofwhiskey has continued to attack Dinesh D'Souza with a tenacity and complete disregard for sources or standards that is really quite shocking. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Oneshotofwhiskey has mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz eight times now ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]), claiming it is "WP:SYNTH" to include Dershowitz's attributed opinion because "he was not involved in this trial of D'Souza" (needless to say, that is not a proper application of the policy), and adding "Dershowitz himself is a shoddy source considering his own actions in helping murderer O.J. Simpson get away with his crimes." Oneshotofwhiskey continues to rant about how D'Souza is "a pathological liar, delusional, mentally-unstable, (and) an adulterer", and frequently makes claims that fail verification, as when he attributed the following text to this Slate article: "In 2012, D'Souza released 2016: Obama's America, a conservative political documentary film based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage. Both offer his personal partisan opinions and anecdotal observations." Since Oneshotofwhiskey believes WP:BRD does not apply to his changes, I feel I have no choice but to seek your assistance. While the article is currently locked down, there is every reason to assume Oneshotofwhiskey will resume his behavior when the protection expires. Based on the evidence above, I believe admins should seriously consider imposing a topic ban.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. As for the rest of the regurgitated allegations by TheTimesAreAChanging: I'm not pretending to have never made mistakes with previous edits. When called out on anything that comes to close to a POV or political edit, I have almost ALWAYS backed down in the spirit of compromise. We all are biases, sure. However, I'm careful to respect that, and one only needs to examine my edits closely to see that I will compromise. The mugshot thing, for instance, is a case in point: this is misleading and gleefully exploited by this editor. When I included it, it was ONLY because D'Souza identifies himself as a political prisoner. Unlike most political commentators who would be ashamed of his jail time, D'Souza is a celebrity conservative pundit who wears his convicted status as a badge of pride. He doesn't simply brag about it- he has woven it obsessively into his personal narrative and brand, presenting himself as a political outlaw in the spirit of Robin Hood taking on Obama as his Sheriff of Nottingham. Ridiculous as this sounds, simply look at his latest partisan 'documentary' about Hillary where he spends a significant portion of his movie dramatizing his jail time as the tale of an innocent man targeted by Obama in a political vendetta. He's the star of his own tale of political persecution, not unlike Donald Trump who claims the world is conspiring against him to rig the election and frame him for sex crimes. I can list citations if you think I'm exaggerating. And it was in that vein that I innocently introduced a cropped mugshot since D'Souza himself proudly identifies with that image. However, immediately after it became clear that others editors disapproved of this, I quickly backed down. There is even a section of our talk page dedicated to this very subject for debate! [[49]] 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 [[50]] 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 [[51]] 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 [[52]]. 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 [[53]] in the subject heading. So, are all of these just "flourishes", as the editor notes? If an editor comes here to make not one but TWO ANIs like this, then they had better be setting a good example themselves. If you examine the subject heading in that edit I listed, TheTimesAreAChanging After being warned by SPECIFICO that "WP:NPA you may make civil behavioral comments on editor talk pages and you may file behavioral complaints on AE or ANI." TheTimesAreAChanginggoes on the attack, saying Your pal called me "hot-headed," "ridiculous," and "partisan"--and much worse elsewhere--yet you redacted only my warning that arbitration is now needed? SPECIFICO, how's this for a personal attack: You're a joke! For the record, I am NOT friends with SPECIFICO. This is just a smug personal attack at least or, at most, a false accusation of meatpuppetry that doesn't belong here at all. This is also the same editor who is still under close watch from admins in the prior ANI for confessing to violating the 3RR rule. Again, he can't have it both ways. Sorry, but my soap box is higher than his horse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Oshwah: has asked me to post the following information that came up on his talk page this morning. In Oshwah's closure of the recent AN3 complaint, one of the reasons he gave for not sanctioning Times was that Oshwah did not realize that Times had been given notice of the ARBAP sanctions in November 2015, nearly a year before his recent violation. Times was notified in November 2015 [54] and then, not realizing this, I warned him in Oct 2016, prompting some kind of denial in his edit comment deleting the notification here: [55] shortly thereafter, Robert McClendon also notified him with the template. So, for nearly a year after he was warned of the ARBAP sanctions, editor Times continued his disruptive behavior. A look through his talk page archives shows many editors of all stripes politely asking him to stop personal attacks and battlegrounding, only to receive snarky or accusatory replies. Unlike relatively new editor Whiskey, Times continued to escalate his attacks and disruption even after he was formally notified of DS. (Oshwah, I hope I've accurately conveyed what you suggested.) SPECIFICO talk 03:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposal: Pageban for Oneshotofwhiskey

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

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

• Weak support per concerns above. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I understand that people make mistakes and that emotions can flare and to the point where it drives your editing. We've all been there. I also note and acknowledge Kingsindian's response to my thoughts above; I'm completely willing to put the content changes made as AGF and that they are explainable. However, the edits I cannot see past are Oneshotofwhiskey's accusations made here, and explanations such as his edit summary here. I understand if Oneshotofwhiskey had perhaps expressed anger over the SPI and went off at him about it (although still uncivil), but the accusation he made starting 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)

Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles

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

---

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

The summary of the two sides is:

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

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

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

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

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

@Stepho-wrs:

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

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

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

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

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

There was an RFC. It ended with no consensus. The oppose side now wants to restore the article to the original configuration. While the pro side refuses to do so, claiming that no consensus means the info can stay. Hence the ANI.

P.S. This criminal use nonsense that started on the firearm pages, is now spreading to automotive, pressure cooker, utility knives, fire, mudslide and other articles. It is very disruptive. It's leading to open warfare and a lot of bad blood between editors. It's time for Administrators to PAY ATTENTION and set up some serous policy regarding it's inclusion (when, where, how & why or not at all). --70.170.74.199 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Admins don't write policy. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Tony1

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

The incident began when I challenged a deletion of Tony's at Johannes Brahms[56]. I quoted a number of sources on the talk page, and asked if he had sources supporting his view. After several days with no reply, I restored the deleted sentence. Tony immediately redeleted the sentence, and replied on the talk page. Although he did not provide any sources to support his position, it was clear from his reply that he took umbrage at my post Talk:Johannes Brahms#Undue emphasis. Seeing that further discussion was not going to be productive, I started an RFC to get other editors' opinions Talk:Johannes Brahms#RFC: Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include counterpoint as a key element in his compositional style?.

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

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

I ask you here for the following assistance:

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you are right. Judging from Tony1's comment below, perhaps his concern was really with the reliability of some of the cited sources. I have replaced the references to Kahn with some from more recognized authors. Let's hope this puts an end to this. If I misinterpreted Tony's edits as a form of stalking, I apologize. As for the RFC, perhaps there, too, he is right. But since the RFC is already up and running, perhaps he would like to participate in it, and quote some sources for his divergent view. Ravpapa (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Tony1

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

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

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

The edits made since coming here retain opinion, and pose Ravpapa's questions to the readers in Wikipedia's narrative. The propositions are worded like an informal performance lesson, which sits oddly in an encyclopedic register. It's better that some of them finally have references, but an obvious issue, for example, is that they could apply to all musical performance, of any music: "Once mastering the technical difficulties, there are many interpretive issues to resolve." A reference has been dug up, but is unnecessary, because it's a no-brainer; the solution is to remove that proposition.

This is a most inappropriate place to have the discussion, but Ravpapa fails to engage on talkpages when challenged and prefers a battlefield environment. The edits need to be fixed (and regrettably contain several formatting errors). Tony (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

On the face of it, I agree, though I have not gone into much detail. This seems to be a case where the disputed material should be removed and taken to Talk. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm unwatchlisting here. Result is that I'd feel uncomfortable editing in the same places, or raising questions about such edits in these articles. That's a sad situation. Bye. Tony (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

---

Following on from User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#Phew... and my own talk page, I had (in bad faith, admittedly) closed or relisted some AfDs. Having some good advice from sarahj2107, Fortuna along with Lourdes and Izno, started bickering at me on my user page after I (again, with bad faith) accused them as trolls on RFPP, to which I apologised, [57] to which Fortuna, I believe, has not either seen, nor accepted. Fortuna then took the discussion to their user page, along with the latter two left after I put through a statement, and assisted Izno after I recnsidered his AfD to which I relisted and since closed and left it at that. Fortuna then refused to let it die and started using false evidence against me, using an old talkpage under an old pseudonym I was using, User talk: Nordic Dragon, to which I moved to get speedied after it contained personal data, since deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (pinging for his input). I kindly asked Fortuna to reassess what he had done and he refuses to either look at the evidence that I provided or he blatantly refuses to stand down out of spite, now calling me a troll. [58] Now as matter of course, I have referred it to ANI for administrator assistance. Since then, another user has got involved, Light2021, who reverts my NAC on an AfD which I thought was correct. I require admin assistance on this too. Nordic Nightfury 14:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

On an off topic note, user:Jeni posted on my talkpage soon after to comfort me. Truth of it is, work probably got the better of me and this is probably how this all started. I, however, don't understand the confrontational behaviour of Fortuna, even after I apologised. Nordic Nightfury 15:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

On a tangent, I've deleted the moved talk page described by NF above, and please consider this a red herring. Someone posted to an incorrect, blank talk page, and their post was suppressed. NF is not really trying to hide anything by moving this and asking it to be speedied. While deletion wasn't really needed, it does no harm, and makes life just a little simpler. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Had you ever considered another change of user name to something like "Nordic Nightbalm", "Nordic Hedgehog", or "Nordic Harvest mouse", etc. But I'd try and steer clear of names like Rattus Norvegicus, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Nordic Nightfury: As far as the substance of this issue goes, you may wish to read WP:Relist bias, an essay I wrote a while back which certainly applies to this situation. You've asked an administrator to deal with the user conduct issues here. Here's how I see what's happened so far. You made a series of clearly erroneous closes (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Celestine_Ogbu, where you relisted a unanimous outcome). Multiple editors politely requested that you reconsider your relists, providing an explanation for why they were not appropriate (diff). Your response demonstrated a lack of understanding of consensus (diff), and further editors requested that you reconsider your closes to prevent the community from wasting time overturning them. Instead of discussing this, you removed discussion from your user talk page and replaced it with a notice not to discuss the issue with you (diff). This goes against WP:ADMINACCT, which most certainly does apply to non-admins when they act as closers. You then requested full protection of your talk page to enforce this lack of discussion, calling the editors attempting to discuss their concerns with you trolls (diff). In what looks to be a direct response to this comment and continued attempts to dodge discussion and responsibility for your closes, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi stated your actions were "close to trolling", a statement which comments on your actions, not you as an individual (diff). This should have been phrased better. Having read that summary of what's happened, with diffs, do you really want to request administrator attention here, or are you able to accept this as a lesson learned and return to editing productively? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Very wise and understated advice above. I think a withdrawal by the O.P at this point would be in everyone's best interests. Just an uninvolved observation. Irondome (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Uncivil behavior by User:Pinoyhoops

I nominated an article for deletion that Pinoyhoops (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) created. In response, the user left this message on my talk page, with a personal attack in both the body and the edit summary. After I warned the user about personal attacks, I received this templated warning in response. I don't think that this approach to other editors is acceptable here. agtx 17:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What is a "Wiki Gestapo"? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Their reaction to your entirely reasonable nomination was inappropriate. Your comment on their talk page was fine. Their response was petulant but best ignored. However, I don't yet see a need to bring this to ANI, let's see if this blows over as it possibly will.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of CAPITAL LETTERS is uncivil and is like shouting, so you did the right thing in deleting an uncivil message. I agree with Sphilbrick: Just chill for a while. Go out for a walk. Let's see what happens. My opinion only, but I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC).

There's no doubt that Pinyhoops' message was uncivil. "What's your beef?"? I find that insulting. Plus, it should be noted that Pinyhoops then nominated Agtx's user page for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Agtx). Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"What's your beef?" is a slangy, old-fashioned way of saying "What's your complaint?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Gestapo is the part that was the most offensive. If the user hadn't compared me to Hitler's secret police, I wouldn't have brought it to ANI. agtx 18:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I would have called that a personal attack, flat out. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Just a note that Pinoyhoops was more than just uncivil/attacking, they also nominated Agtx's userpage for deletion with a preposterous nominating statement. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Agtx.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Which has been reverted. I followed up with a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the user's most recent edit on the AfD makes me sense competence issue. They imply that they know more than those who have been here longer than them and basically insulting RickinBaltimore (sp?) if you ask me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll admit my AfD comment might be a bit flippant, but my point stands on the page. I can understand the editor is frustrated an article they are working on is marked for deletion, I get that, however insults and incivility isn't the way to go to handle this. The user just recently came back from a 6 year break (with the exception of one article), however civility hasn't changed in that time. I'd suggest that they tone down their rhetoric or they could be blocked if it keeps up sadly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

LTA Sju hav currently committing major BLP violations, SPI forum not doing anything

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

---

Sju hav is a longterm sockmaster whose main focus is controversies covered in Norwegian news, often leading to major BLP violations. He is currently editing Therese Johaug as an IP, making the doping allegation section wildly undue, in addition to other problems. He was reported to the SPI board on 3 october, with later follow-ups, but they have pretty much vowed not to do anything. Iselilja (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Iselilja (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"vowed not to do anything"? What a lovely and false allegation.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion while AfD still open

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

---

@RHaworth: speedy deleted Donald Trump's hair while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair is still open and by far not clear on the "delete" side, let alone anything near speedy. --SI 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The page was deleted as an attack page (CSD G10), which could supercede the AfD that was in process. I will say that this is the wrong venue, and that you could post this in deletion review for a better examination on the delete. It's not unusual for a page to be CSD'd during a AfD though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Did you read the article?? I didn't say that this generally can't be done, but here it was really really ungrounded. --SI 20:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I did read the article, and commented in the AfD. My comment was simply that CSD during an AfD isn't unusual, that's all. It wasn't a comment on whether the page was worthy of a CSD or not (and that's honestly for DRV, not here). RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I pinged RHaworth on the AfD. I generally agree that G10 was the wrong way to go, but wanted to hear his side of the story/see if he would restore. I agree with RickinBaltimore that WP:DRV would be more appropriate than ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, OK I'll go there, but the article was really really far from WP:G10 and WP:ATTACK, and the AfD is running and very active since four days, and of 42 authors only one just now made the speedy proposal. --SI 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've DRVed it. pbp 20:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I nominated the article for G10. I fully accept that reasonable minds can differ on this, though I do believe it was an attack page. I posted my rationale in the AfD and I'll re-post it at DRV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

CSD while AFD is ongoing is not an issue, for example attack or hoax pages in particular. GiantSnowman 20:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Did you read this article?? I didn't say that this generally can't be done, but here it was really really ungrounded. --SI 20:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Luke de paul

Hi, There seems to be an issue with User:Luke de paul and creating sandboxes purely for navbox storage,
On the 25th September I had nominated their sandbox for deletion due to it having nothing but navboxes, it was deleted on the 5th October however come the 6th October Luke had recreated it twice[59] so I asked Yamla to redelete and salt[60] which they did,
In October Luke created another sandbox which again I nominated for deletion and it was subsequently deleted on the 23rd October .... but yet again today it's been recreated but this time Luke is repeatedly blanking it (I'm assuming to go undetected?) [61][62][63],
Between Sep - Oct they'd came to my talkpage telling me they wouldn't create this again and that the IP edits were them - I've tried to help and be lenient as possible however I think they're now using what they have left of their rope,

I have no issues with articles (or even navboxes) being improved or tested in sandboxes but this editor is simply storing navboxes despite being told not too (and it's also causing issues with the non-free images in the navboxes too), As they also seem to be editing using IPs I had also told them about WP:SOCK which seems to have been ignored,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry to be impatient here but is no admin intervention needed then ? ...., If the editor has had one sandbox salted due to the disruption then surely something be done about it?, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 19:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure what to do. I deleted sandbox3 since he blanked it, as a CSD. User:Luke de paul/sandbox2 doesn't seem to be violating policy, or am I missing something? I can't just say "don't do that" unless there is a tangible problem or policy violation. Using nonfree stuff, yes, if it is transcluded somewhere, yes. Maybe I'm just dense but I need more info on the violation itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Dennis Brown, Ah I wasn't aware that was created but that sandbox isn't an issue, Basically all of the content that was at User:Luke de paul/sandbox ended up at User:Luke de paul/sandbox3 and sandbox3 (like the other sandbox) was deleted via MFD, What I'm trying to say is the editor is constantly recreating their sandboxes despite the MFD discussions and they're the same content as the previous versions and they don't seem to be improving any actual navboxes - They just store them all, The other issue was that they're editing their sandboxes under IPs instead of their normal account, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Not much I can do about editing their own sandbox as IP, that really isn't "abuse of multiple accounts". I sometimes edit little things at work as an IP, just spelling or such. If there were editing articles as both, that is grey, and obviously if trying to deceive. If it was part of a MFD, then yes, I will go verify and delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I ended up giving him a short block for disruption. All the deception and such, we don't have time games. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Dennis Brown, I know I've heard quite a few do it but with this editor it just seemed odd but perhaps I'm being abit OTT here, Anyway thank you for kindly dealing with it and I apologize if half of what I said made no sense - I was trying to be thorough & detailed as I could, Anyway thanks for your help it's much appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:P3DRO

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

---

Okay, this is getting tiresome. From now and then, P3DRO (talk · contribs) harasses and insults me (mostly in Portuguese) on my talk page: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70].

User constantly makes bullshit and laughable accusations against me, such as: wanting to be the "last editor" on articles; "destroying" contributions; "not respecting" users; "childish and disrespectful behaviour". More recently, user has called me "canalha" (scoundrel), and said it will stop editing pages which I edit.

My conclusion is that P3DRO wants to limit my action on Wikipedia; what I can or cannot edit. And this is not acceptable. SLBedit (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've left a crystal clear warning on his talk page. He doesn't do it often, but doing it in Portuguese thinking no one can find translate.google.com is pretty silly of him. If it continues, he will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• • You are constantly reverting my work, you do not respect other users contributions. Also "canalha" does not mean that. You call that to little kids who behave badly. Do not misrepresent my words. I do not want to limite your work, I only want you to stop that behaviour and stop reverting my edits. Looks like you're chasing me, constantly reverting my edits with poor excuses.

The way you do things looks like you want to be the last editor, only the things you edit are correct, you do not respect other people. That's what it looks.

Also, you continue to ignore me in your talk page. P3DRO (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

More silly accusations. "Canalha" is offensive and it means "patife", which means ""scoundrel" (A mean, worthless fellow; a rascal; a villain; a person without honour or virtue), "rascal" (Low; lowly, part of or belonging to the common rabble), "knave" (A tricky, deceitful fellow; a dishonest person; a rogue; a villain), "villain" (A deliberate scoundrel). You want to limit my action, change my behaviour, how I edit, what I edit. More baseless accusations. I use my watchlist. No, I read all the nonsense you wrote there, hence the reverts/cleanup. SLBedit (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese girl here to offer my two cents. I am Portuguese through my father and although I have Portuguese citizenship, meu português esta um pouco fraco. Regardless of my level of the language, the context itself is enough said. To tell a user to go ahead and take their bike just said it all for me. You are seriously reminded of WP:CIVIL. Your constant posting on SLBedit is mounting to WP:HARASS. If an editor refuses to communicate with you, look for other ways to reach them or bring the attention to the article's talk page. Consistently posting on someone's talk page is essentially harassment. Canalha is translated to negative and insulting words. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible crosswiki spam

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

---

An article about a non notable band (Bonnevilla) got deleted twice at es.wikipedia. It's been recreated here and the user just won't stop removing the maintenance tag I put a few days ago. See [71]. Best, --181.167.131.136 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Jackgrohmann

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

---

The user has added unsourced information over and over again on American Music Awards of 2016 list of performers, claiming he knows "the true list of performances, you will see, I Work for them (& Miley Cyrus is negoc to be The host)". Has been warned, but still doing it. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Gave him a final warning for unsourced content. If he persists, AIV is thataway. :-) Katie^talk 03:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Professor Carl Hewitt threatens litigation

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

---

User:Prof. Carl Hewitt wrote today that "this whole thing is going to be escalated and re-litigated once more."[72] To me it looks like he is threatening legal action. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Tbh, it appears that they're using it in the sense of "redebate" since BLP and content were debated before by Carl and other users. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines litigate as "to make (something) the subject of a lawsuit : to cause (a case, an issue, etc.) to be decided and settled in a court of law." If this is what Carl Hewitt intended to say, he should be blocked per WP:NLT. He should get a chance to clarify or withdraw what he has said. Over to you, Professor Hewitt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to support my claim, Dictionary.com gives an archaic meaning of litigate as "to dispute (a point, assertion, etc.).". But I agree that the user needs to clarify and should be given the chance do so given that it's not unambiguous. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I have made no legal threat. My comment was "Of course, as in the past, these things are litigated in the court of public opinion where publications have to get around censorship that is practiced in various places."

Carl (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's universal, but saying that something has or will be "re-litigated" is a common informal term for going back over an issue that was previously thought settled (often in a legalistic manner, which would be appropriate for eg. a policy dispute here.) It's common in political discussions, too, eg. [73]. It's clear from the context that he didn't intend that as a legal threat, especially since reading it as literally would require assuming that he has engaged in actual legal action over the topic in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

TBH I didn't see it as a legal threat, but most dictionaries nowadays give the primary meaning of litigate as involving legal action in a court. The Oxford dictionary also does this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As common synonyms for "litigate", we have "dispute" and "contest." Carl (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've heard with some frequency the use of "relitigate" to mean to reargue a point already previously discussed, and not at all to mean in a legal context. I would see this comment as use of an idiom that's at least somewhat commonly used, not an actionable legal threat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Since English is a decidedly ambiguous language, wouldn't the simplest solution be that the good Professor strike "relitigate" and replace it with a less loaded term such as "rehash"? Then we could all go have a beer and shoot some darts. John from Idegon (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: At this point... we're at the 'two more scotch, and two more beers' stage I think  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The word used was "re-litigated", which if taken in its strict legal sense implies that a prior legal action occurred. That doesn't appear to be the case here, so I think it is reasonable to conclude that "re-litigated" was meant in the sense of "discussed again". I think this can be closed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Public Eye (Erklärung von Bern), Alternative Bank Schweiz, VCS Verkehrs-Club der Schweiz

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

---

Hi, in short (i.e. minimally documented by wikilinks) as I actually feel sent from Pontius to Pilatus: I just reported two IP-related sockpuppet investigations, but they were removed without any 'ping' two hours ago. btw: two further about two weeks ago were handled, a week later, commenting too late to investigate... These incidents started three weeks ago when I reported some obviously sockpuppets, and four hours ago additionally requested semi-protection for Public Eye (Erklärung von Bern) ([74] > [75] > [76]) where it started end of September (IP edits, imho trolling), and Alternative Bank Schweiz and VCS Verkehrs-Club der Schweiz which imho also were affected in October. Now remarking, that I was 'silently recommended' to report here. Please kindly take notice, that first I asked at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#How_to_handle_potentially_sock_puppetry on 26 September 2016 how to handle, but imho were no recommendations or support, hence, I started above mentioned to avoid further îmho trolling. Honestly frustrated and kindly asking your support, thx Roland zh (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't help you with blocking IP addresses, but maybe I can help explain a few things. It's a little difficult for me to understand your writing, but it looks like you're asking why your reports were declined. The reason why your SPI report was removed was because 1) you requested an investigation at "quick CU requests", and 2) you requested a CU on an IP address. The quick check is not for investigations of sock puppetry; you need to file a full report for that. The other problem is that CUs generally won't publicly comment on IP addresses, so even if you had filed a full report, the CU request would have been declined. To file an SPI case, you should follow the directions at "How to open an investigation" at WP:SPI: click on "show", enter the sock master's name, and follow the prompts. If you think the case is too complicated for SPI, you can bring it here, but you'll probably still be told to go to SPI. You were redirected here (or AIV) in your request for page protection because there wasn't enough recent, obvious disruption to the articles. Also, most of the recent IP edits on Public Eye came from a single IP address. If those cases, you can warn the IP editor and get the individual IP address blocked (either here or at AIV). I think that's what Oshwah meant when he said to warn the user and report them here. If you need further help in managing Wikipedia's labyrinthine bureaucracy, you might try asking at WP:HELPDESK. Oshwah himself is pretty helpful, and if you ask him to explain what he meant, he will assist you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The SPI quick check was removed because there's nothing to check. This is likely one person editing from school (the dynamic IP in the 128.178.188.0/22 range) and from home (the static IP). The first article kind of skirts the level of disruption necessary for protection, but I don't think it's quite there yet. The other two haven't been edited in more than two weeks.

I've warned the static IP for disruptive editing, and you should escalate the warnings as necessary if he persists. Oshwah gave you good advice at your RFPP request when he said to report to AIV next time, because that's where this belongs. I hear your frustration, but this is rather minor. Katie^talk 15:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Katie and NinjaRobotPirate. I tried to 'historize' these 'incidents' as short as possible (before, hours were spent to report sockpuppeting/trolling at three WP:XX sites) back to my first inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#How to handle potentially sock puppetry, one month ago. I appreciate especially your explainations why I was redirected/declined. Though I wasn't 'ping-ed' today as mentioned, it's no complaint about any Wikimedians/Administrators, definitely and in no sense. I'd tried to ask again how to handle, and semi-protection for IP's seemed to be a potentially solution. Yes, I am disappointed and frustrated as mentioned, but particularly about imho trolling (from home and work/school, I'd professional IT experiences) those wikis by assumably the same sockpuppet/circle as reported in early October, i.e. registred users/IP's ranging from Lausanne to Amsterdam. As I don't like to wikipolice unregistered users, whose contributions I appreciate very much and even thank at the related IP-talks, I appreciate your attention and thank you for your recent efforts. Closing kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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.[77][78][79] He doesn't seem to understand why it was inappropriate. These two are particularly worrying. I would give more diffs, but literally every single edit he's made in the past two weeks has been problematic.

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

Could someone look at this?

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

• Speaking as an editor, I can see why you reverted the two sources out, as they weren't related to what they were supposedly citing. It would be interesting to hear why why PogingJuan (talk · contribs) thinks removing them was so egregious as to template you multiple times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: With humility, I've discussed it clearly to User:Hijiri88, but seems he didn't understand or even listen my side on including the sentence on the article (I've added a citation, supporting it), that was not clearly sourced at first. I think, it's because he thinks that I hate him on siding with User:Signedzzz (I have actually looked it as lawyering as Hijiri88 keeps on explaining while Signedzzz do not), whom I and User:RioHondo have problems about the allegations of death threat and NPOV edits of Signedzzz, during the past ANI discussion, Hijiri88 have provided on the OP. I've also sent you a message on your talk page last October 20 (UTC) to request you an insight. Back to the Galing Pook award inclusion now, you may refer to this link. There I have resided my explanation on how that sentence must be included on the article, that then-mayor Duterte also became a key to gender mainstreaming in Davao City and must be credited too. But this Hijiri88 insists that I am reverting his edit because I don't like it and he'll request me to be blocked 1. He did even accuse me of having a political agenda (apparently a WP:CoI) while I haven't any 2. I see hypocrisy there, because Signedzzz, whom he has been lawyering on the unclosed ANI discussion, don't remind him about the obvious WP:CoI as RioHondo have proven. ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Did the above answer your question? Can you tell me what the above post (or any of the "clear" "discussion" on the talk page) has to do with ASEAN or the environment? Because I can't figure it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston is taking the lead and I agree with his cautious approach here. That doesn't mean blocks aren't coming, it means he (and I) hope blocks aren't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have fully protected Rodrigo Duterte five days per a request at WP:RFPP. In my opinion, recent edits by several people have been less than optimal. This is a good moment to try to have a calm discussion on the article talk page and get agreement on the things being disputed. Any changes that have consensus can be made during the protection by using the {{Edit fully protected}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: "content dispute and edit-warring"? The closest thing to edit-warring has been PogingJuan's repeated attempts to reinsert a source that has nothing to do with the article content, and that is not a content dispute because it has ... nothing to do with article content. I actually don't give a damn about the article content -- all I know is that at present it looks like crap and is very poorly sourced. Shit. Didn't realize that there actually was a content dispute and edit-war that overshadowed my problem immediately afterward and immediately before your RFPP post. Just looking at what you wrote on RFPP, it looked like you were talking about PogingJuan and me. Sorry for the confusion.

@EdJohnston: This is not about the Duterte page, and there isn't even a content dispute -- I reported PogingJuan because of his user conduct issues. Telling me that I should discuss "the things being disputed" with PogingJuan is telling me I should endure more harassment and nonsense non sequiturs. I honestly have no idea what things are being disputed. Sorry. Just found out what you were referring to. VanHalen09 and Signedzzz appear to be engaged in an unrelated content dispute and edit war. This has nothing to do with my problem with PogingJuan's constant attacks, attempts to intimidate, templating the regulars, and refusal to listen when I explain to him that inserting random citations with nothing to do with article content is inappropriate. Before I noticed the subsequent bona fide edit war, it also looked like "less than optimal" was referring to my removal of blog-like citations, since they were the only recent edits of substance that I was aware of. Again, apologies for the misunderstanding.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC) (Edited 21:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC))

Yes, presumably this is about VanHalen09 removing a cited quote claiming that it is not mentioned in the source. After two reverts he admitted that it was in fact in the source and apologised. Dispute over. Then he insisted on moving the quote - about Duterte's personal life - out of the personal life section, and into the "Controversies and criticism" section. I reverted, and asked him to please not move stuff out of the relevant section and into the trivia section. He claimed he wasn't doing that, and did it again anyway. At which point I left him to it. The page block came later on, and makes no sense whatsoever in terms of article content, but certainly shut down this discussion very effectively. zzz (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, PogingJuan is one of the people who forms part of the war. Since you included diffs of edits at Rodrigo Duterte in your complaint, I assume that my protecting that article is a relevant step. At present there is no problem that should keep everyone from joining in discussions at Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. If people can't engage there without personal attacks then admin action might be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have spent the last several weeks trying to discuss with him. Look at the 4000+ word ANI thread that consists primarily of him trying to convince me that the problem was one-sided POV-pushing by Signedzzz. He claimed there were problems with the article, so I stepped in and started trying to fix them. I immediately found. The problems that none of PogingJuan's talk page comments make any sense or properly address the problems (look at his post in this thread), and PogingJuan is extremely aggressive, have nothing to do with article content. I conceded that "Davao city received X award" could stay for the time being and the source that directly supported it could stay as well, but when I tried to remove the other citation that had nothing to do with it, he reverted me twice, and then he started trying to threaten me for "harassing" him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Consider opening a WP:Request for comment about the Davao City issue at Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. It would be easier for admins to decide who to sanction if we could see at least some people trying to go through the proper steps of WP:Dispute resolution. You made reference to a 4000-word thread here in Archive936 but that was so confusing it's unlikely it could have led to any action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

RFCU was abandoned some years ago. If I have a problem with a user repeatedly posting threatening messages on my talk page, [80][81][82] accusing me of "personal attacks" and "harassment" for removing an out-of-place citation in an article,[83][84], 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),[85] refactoring and decontextualizing my messages on his talk page,[86] 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,[87][88][89] refusing to look at the content of my edit or even read the edit summary before reverting me,[90] referring to me diminutively as "bro" and insinuating that I lack common sense,[91] 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)

3RR, BLP violations, incivility in edit summaries, repeated adding of unreferenced content by IP

User:2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 is repeatedly adding unreferenced material to Doc Love in violation of WP:BLP, not to mention WP:3RR. Oddly enough, he cites 3RR in justifying his edits, perhaps accusing other editors of doing so, I don't know. However, as best I can tell, no individual editor has reverted him more than three times in the last 24 hours, and in any case as a BLP violation, their reversions are justified. Additionally, the IP has been showing incivility and lack of WP:AGF in some edit summaries here and elsewhere, such as Abu Bakr. Examples: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], and [99]. Smartyllama (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

See also an3-notice board, a report that I filed before I noticed this one. Sorry for that. - DVdm (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I was correct that no other individual editor has more than three reverts. I'm the only one to make more than three edits to the page in the last 24 hours (other than the user being reported), but two of those five edits were simple formatting changes, removing unnecessarily bolded text and replacing it with quotation marks, which are not reverts and thus not counted towards the 3RR. So no editor other than anon being reported violated 3RR, at least for now, even if BLP weren't an issue. Smartyllama (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

He did it again. I reverted it citing the BLP exemption to 3RR, and despite what he says, this is the first instance of any editor except him reverting more than three times. Smartyllama (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the page was semi-protected, which should stop him for now. Smartyllama (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

More personal attacks Smartyllama (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog and their mass tagging of Educational Project Articles

OP Blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Jytdog has decided to go and mass tag Draft articles belonging to an educational class project as being mass copy violations. They then spoke with User_talk:SwisterTwister who advised them that there is no evidence of this. Any other editor would be blocked for actions like this. Jytdog has been the subject of weekly AN/I threads. Yes they do great work but the means does not justify the end, especially after a lengthy block. This block MUST be revisted as this cannot continue any longer. I am not linking diffs because there are too many but here is an overview: 03:51, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+602)‎ . . N Draft talk:Uncinectomy ‎ (warning) (current) 03:51, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Laryngeal keratosis ‎ (warning) (current) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Jarjavay Fracture ‎ (warning) (current) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Meatoplasty of ear ‎ (warning) (current) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Endoscopic laser cordectomy ‎ (warning) (current) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Transoral thyroidectomy ‎ (warning) (current) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Antrochoanal polyps ‎ (warning) (current) 03:49, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Lateral sinus thrombophlebitis ‎ (warning) (current) 03:49, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Oroantral fistula ‎ (warning) (current) 03:49, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Laryngeal sarcoidosis ‎ (warning) (current) 03:49, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Adenocarcinoma of ethmoid sinus ‎ (warning) (current) 03:49, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Presbyphonia ‎ (warning) (current) 03:48, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Auriculo condylar syndrome ‎ (warning) (current) 03:48, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Tornwaldt's disease ‎ (warning) (current) 03:48, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Frontal sinus trephination ‎ (warning) (current) 03:47, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+603)‎ . . Draft talk:Transoral robotic surgery ‎ (warning) (current) 03:46, 26 October 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+602)‎ . . Draft talk:Nasal synechiae ‎ (→‎Warning to reviewers: new section) (current) 87.139.130.130 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Also I would appreciate if non-admins would NOT remove reports and label them as "troll". 87.139.130.130 (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC) There is plenty enough evidence noted at Wikipedia talk:Education program/B K Shah Medical Institute and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents to suggest that tagging all draft articles to warn against copyvios is a sensible precaution. I'm struggling to understand a) why you misrepresent the situation and b) what your problem with such warnings is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of William Grant Murray, Howardian High School and Écoles gratuites de dessin

User:DDupard has been adding disruptive tags, in breach of WP:DISRUPTPOINT. These edits are targeted at me (User:Verbcatcher).

• William Grant Murray
  • Tag "unreferenced section"
  • 1st re-revert
  • 2nd re-revert
• Howardian High School
  • Tag "unreferenced section"
  • Re-revert
• Écoles gratuites de dessin
  • Tag "unreferenced"
  • Tag "merge to"

DDupard and I recently had a dispute in Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students. When that dispute was concluded I made a related proposal at Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière#Lists of teachers and students. DDupard disputed this proposal. DDupard then added tags to three other articles with which I had been involved. I interpreted these edits as attempts to make a point, and said so on the talk pages. Nevertheless, I discussed the issues raised by the tags. DDupard has since added a comment in Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière: "And my proposal there is pedagogical", which I read as confirming that the tagging of William Grant Murray was intended to teach me a lesson. I said so on the talk pages and reverted the tags in William Grant Murray and Howardian High School (but not in Écoles gratuites de dessin). DDupard has restored the tag in William Grant Murray.

Talk page sections:

• Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students
• Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière#Lists of teachers and students
• Talk:Howardian High School#William Grant Murray and Howardian High School (moved from User talk:DDupard)
• Talk:Écoles gratuites de dessin#Merge
• User talk:Verbcatcher#Lists of teachers and students

These edits are attempting to illustrate a point, and not to improve the articles. They may be intended as revenge for my interventions in the articles on the two French Académies. The "merge to" tag appears to be an attempt to get an article deleted. I have tried to discuss these issues in a calm and non-inflammatory manner. It is important that disputes are restricted to talk pages, and as far as possible do not disrupt the articles. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Response: no edit, just tagging unreferenced lists of alumni on William Grant Murray, and Howardian High School - Unsourced article Écoles gratuites de dessin with previous debate from 2014 on that specific question, + smear campaign on Talk:Howardian High School: "Unreferenced section tag to this article was intended to teach me a lesson", as well as right here, may be elsewhere, I don't know. + verbal threats "I am out to get you" . --DDupard (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"I am out to get you" was a typo for which I apologise. I had intended "I am not out to get you", and I think that this is clear from the context. I made no smear campaign. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing says that postings here should focus on user conduct issues. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Typo was not corrected, apologies presented here and now--DDupard (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"Time is of the essence" ;), accepted anyhow--DDupard (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be simpler to add the requested references to the articles than to come here as a side move.--DDupard (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Resolve needed

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

---

Resolved

 – blocked Lyndsayalarice. Materialscientist (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Can an Admin resolve this issue, user needs blocking or Nancy Newman needs extended-semi protection, semi no longer works. More info is on the article's talk page. Thanx - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

there is more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nancy_Newman Lyndsayalarice (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Hoaxing in user page after block

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

---

PoohBearFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked about two weeks ago for creating hoax movie articles (and IIRC adding unreferenced hoaxy info to existing movie pages). At the time, I contacted the blocking administrator because the user's talk page contained more of the same (but got no answer).

I do not know how much leeway is allowed to add, let's say, reality-challenging information in personal pages, but the user seems to recently re-add everything that was deleted to their userpage. I request at the very least a strongly worded letter, if not outright revokal of TP access and blanking the page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User notified. Please ping me if needed be, I will not watch that page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive and tendentious editing Malleus Maleficarum

Asterixf2 (talk · contribs) blocked for edit-warring and general WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems on a noticeboard, of all places. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

---

case related to the user Ryn78. This was preceded by lengthy discussions where I was trying to be considerate. Proper place for his controversies is an appropriate section (already exists) but he is insisting on pushing fringe pov in lead section and this is one of many problems. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No evidence presented that this is anything but a content dispute and no (required) notification of the other editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Added before your comment (notification): [100] --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• To expand on Bbb23's point: For admin to get involved, there has to be a clear consensus (like an RFC or discussion on the talk page) and the editor has to be clearly violating that RFC/discussion. We can't decide the content itself, we can only enforce the will of the community, as expressed on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Asterixf2 is currently the subject of disciplinary actions taking place here and here. --Vami IV (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Deus Vult!

Somehow they all happened after my ANI post. Please note those are permalinks. --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Besides the content dispute, there are behavioral problems such as deleting other editors comments about the content dispute, calling them vandalism.[101] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This was unjustified redaction and revert was fully acceptable. Here is my reply: [102] I don't think you should be involved in any cases related to me given your fierce ad hominem statements directed at me some time ago. --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor on a mission: folkloristics vs cryptozoology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I wish you would explain exactly what Bloodofox is doing that's so bad. Removing content? What kind of content? Removing species? Moving stuff around? Are you talking about edits like this one? That edit seems perfectly valid. This shouldn't be cited anywhere in an encyclopedia (the website of a psychic? fo shizzle?), and this, while dead, has a telling URL: this is something for fourth graders. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Bloodofox has, in the past, edit warred over blanking-and-redirecting (see [103] on Cryptid in August 2016; [104] on Lake monster in February/March 2016 [full disclosure: I was involved in that last one]), but that doesn't appear to be an issue recently. If anything, I'd like to see a note on the talk page when Bloodofox adds tags to a page like this or this. If he's not going to fix the issues himself, a brief rationale behind the tags would help other editors who aren't as familiar with the subject area. clpo13_(talk) 18:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Hmm...those tags...but they come with an edit summary. Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha, but those two diffs on Agogwe and Ahool (what on earth are those things??), I can not find fault with them, and I have no doubt we've all tagged articles in that way, throwing our hands in the air, not knowing what on earth to do with something. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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