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

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 ([1]) after I reminded him WP:3RR on his Talk page ([2]). (2) Just before Norden1990's above cited message, Ditinili made a remark of the "autochthonous" population of a territory when referring to the Slovaks [3]. 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)

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 [4]). 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. ([5] 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)

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

Before you do: since this was about "long term abuse" and "disruptive editing", I just wanted to point out that a pattern of WP:OWN exists WRT fire-related articles. I don't have the time right now to go through everything, so I'll just highlight the most obvious example. Zackmann created {{Alaska fire departments}} by duplicating the contents of portions of {{Alaska}}, except that the latter template isn't full of redlinks like the former. He reverted my efforts to improve the template here and here under the guise of consistency. Let's go back to the edit which created the template, shall we? There is neither a "City of Badger" nor a "Badger Fire Department". The Badger and Moose Creek CDPs and portions of the Steele Creek CDP along and near the Nordale Road bridge across the Chena River are served by the North Star Volunteer Fire Department. NSVFD is partially administered by the Fairbanks North Star Borough for tax purposes, since the state constitution grants taxation powers to boroughs and cities but not to service areas, which in the case of rural fire departments set the policy for their administration. Likewise, other boroughs don't have a borough fire department, but rather have localized VFDs operating under the same or similar structure. This includes the rare cases of fire departments in the Unorganized Borough outside of incorporated cities, whose taxation structure is adminstered under the executive branch of the state government. First of all, what's "consistent" about creating content referencing non-existent entities and other blatant factual inaccuracies? Furthermore, how does "consistency" trump usefulness? I let this go at the time because there's more important work to do than edit warring, plus there's 3RR to take into consideration. Zackmann's version is certainly an exercise in cleverness in that it finds four different ways to link the same two articles, but is in no way more useful than what I was attempting to do. At this point, coverage of this subtopic amounts to a category and the template and not much else of substance. Let's use common sense here. I realize that we've reached the point where dumping content takes precedence over collaboration time after time, but we have plenty of holes needing filling in when it comes to this subtopic. The impression I get is that he wants to pick low-hanging fruit and claim credit for something, but expects others to come along and do the real work when it comes to this subtopic, evident in all these long-persistent redlinks. As you can see from my explanation above, I would be the one with the expertise to fill in those holes in coverage. However, the notion that I'm welcome to do all this work so long as I agree to another editor's veto power sends one message and one message only: "count me out". I did contribute some relevant images to Commons which were published before 1978 without a copyright notice. OTOH, I always think twice about contributing any of my own photos when it comes to content which is being developed more with puffery than substance in mind. Someone responded to a previous statement I made to that effect saying I was being "selfish", when it's more a matter of the need anyone should have to protect their intellectual property from misuse. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that the concepts of consistency and usefulness should never appear in the same sentence as the word trump. EEng 23:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: so your response is to bring up edits I made over a year and a half ago? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

---

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.[6] 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".[7] 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.[8] 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".[9] 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[10] and they collapsed it referring to me as a "troll".[11] 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,[12] and 21 minutes after I posted this initial comment.[13] 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."[14] 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)

You must be joking. EEng 19:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I dunno - maybe you're more optimistic than me, but are you expecting any marked improvement to the candidate pages? I'm expecting exactly this type of behavior to intensify. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I went off half-cocked when I said what I said. I now realize that by locked you mean full protection (i.e. only admins can edit), not a "complete freeze"; full protection is indeed a reasonable possibility, though I doubt a likely one, especially on a blanket basis in a large topic area. (You probably should stop saying "locked" because it's not really a term we use here on WP, and you risk confusing the slightly demented such as myself.) EEng 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes by locked I meant protected. That way proposed edits must go through the edit request process, gain consensus, and then be added by admin. I also doubt this scenario is likely, although it would greatly prevent the disruption that is sure to come the next few days. I chose the word locked because I picture that big lock icon on the top of protected pages, but I will be sure to say protected from now on. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:37, 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)

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

Oneshotofwhiskey and Dinesh D'Souza

This is a modified version of an earlier Request for Arbitration, which was declined: User:Oneshotofwhiskey openly boasts that he is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. In his own words, he is an activist intending to expose "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)"; this mentality has unsurprisingly caused him to challenge basic tenets of WP:BLP. For example, Oneshotofwhiskey replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot, and accused D'Souza of promoting "conspiracy theory" in the lead. Discussion on the talk page has yielded no consensus in favor of labeling D'Souza a "convicted felon" or "conspiracy theorist"—in fact, despite Oneshotofwhiskey's suggestions to the contrary, he is essentially alone in advocating those changes. (An RfC has since been opened on the "conspiracy theorist" question; the results are mixed but leaning against inclusion.) Nor am I alone in challenging Oneshotofwhiskey's POV-pushing language. Although he has since dropped the mugshot angle, Oneshotofwhiskey has continued to attack Dinesh D'Souza with a tenacity and complete disregard for sources or standards that is really quite shocking. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Oneshotofwhiskey has mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz eight times now ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]), 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! [[23]] 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 [[24]] 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 [[25]] 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 [[26]]. 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 [[27]] 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 [28] and then, not realizing this, I warned him in Oct 2016, prompting some kind of denial in his edit comment deleting the notification here: [29] 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 stating that TheTimesAreAChanging was "defending the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)" is another story. The words, to me, show that there's a point of view that's driving these edits, not just frustration. This is what drives the root of my concerns, and is quite frankly one of the main reasons that WP:AC/DS exist in the first place. I also echo Snow Rise's statement above - I don't want this to result in losing Oneshotofwhiskey as an editor. I really hope that he reflects on this as a positive learning experience and someday as a battle scar to show others of his wisdom and experience here. This is the main reason as to why I am in weak support over this proposal. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• support 2 week page ban for Whiskey per above concurrent with his current block. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't going to vote, because I would prefer neutral and uninvolved editors to make the call, but since SPECIFICO—who is very deeply involved in this dispute—has voted, I will do the same. I also support a topic ban for Oneshotofwhiskey due to his consistent pattern of disruptive and WP:NOTHERE behavior, which continued right up until the moment he was blocked on October 26. For evidence, see Oneshotofwhiskey's personal attacks on October 22 ("Sorry, but thankfully the final word on D'Souza isn't wikipedia if you guys succeed in turning this back into a spin page.") and October 25 ("Sorry, TFD. But I don't buy your emotional reasoning.") and his continued edit warring to restore contentious "conspiracy theory" language into the BLP's lead—despite his own pledge not to do so until the relevant RfC was closed—as recently as October 25 (though he made that revert while logged out). In addition, the frankly rather terrifying rants on Oneshotofwhiskey's talk page suggest he has learned little from his experience: See, e.g., "The disruptive editor who falsely accused me continues to act in increasingly bizarre and suspicious behavior ... Since this admin Snow Rise on the API in question is now using this fraudulent SPI as cause for recommending topic bans against me, I would at least ask him for some dignity." (I'm not sure how the SPI was "fraudulent," given that Oneshotofwhiskey admitted to both the socking and the evasion, albeit with the caveat that he thought it was no big deal.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as the evidence clearly points to POV, disruptive, tendentious editing while attacking other editors. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Page Ban for TimesAreAChanging

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

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

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

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

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

As mentioned above, to claim that "Whiskey did cease misbehaving" is only to reveal your own tenuous grasp of the facts surrounding this dispute. If his edit warring abated, that's because I stopped touching the article after being warned, leaving Oneshotofwhiskey to more or less have his way with it for a sustained period of time. Even then, he was reverting as recently as October 25, the day prior to his current block—to say nothing of his continuous personal attacks against several editors. Because I have no particular interest in Dinesh D'Souza, having only recently added it to my Watchlist after seeing last summer's D'Souza-Cenk Uygur Politicon debate, I would not be terribly upset if both Oneshotofwhiskey and myself were banned from the topic. I would, however, point out that you have produced no evidence to suggest the necessity of such a ban, making your proposal seem like a distraction and an attempt to "split the baby."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Times says Whiskey reverted something on 10/25. True enough. However, Times' edit warring continued through the 26th. Half truths and accusations like this put the rest of us in a draconian time sump trying to restore civility. This is exactly why Times needs a theraputic time out to reframe his approach to this topic and his WP colleagues. Does it make any sense that we close this long thread -- with prima facie violations of ARBAP2 -- only to see the community go through the same exercise at Arbcom Enforcement? Let's do the right thing and wrap it up here. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a fallacy to suggest that, because Oneshotofwhiskey and myself both made edits to the article, we were both being equally disruptive. Oneshotofwhiskey was edit warring to restore contentious "conspiracy theory" language into the lead of a BLP—despite his own pledge not to do so until the relevant RfC was closed. Moreover, while the RfC is still ongoing, the current consensus seems to be against including that language in Wikipedia's voice, so it is hardly surprising that another user (not myself, as I was still maintaining a strict laissez-faire policy at the time) attempted to water it down: What was absolutely shocking—and incredibly disruptive—was Oneshotofwhiskey's prompt revert, which arguably constituted a BLP violation and thus was not subject to normal edit warring restrictions. I do not see how my restoration of the old lead on October 26 could be considered any more "disruptive" than your deletions on October 27. Note that between your edit summary there and your comments here, both you and Iselilja seem to have endorsed my rationale for reverting the WP:BOLD addition of a subsection on D'Souza's "marriage scandal"—if there is broad consensus for such a change I can hardly be called "disruptive" for enforcing the will of the community and restoring the long-standing version. Again, your edit summary here is highly significant: Having argued that certain language is a BLP violation in reference to the Clinton Foundation, it would be very hypocritical of you to assert that nearly identical language is not a BLP violation in reference to D'Souza ... But if you've conceded that the material I reverted constituted a BLP violation similar to the violation you removed around the same time, then you have no case for a page ban whatever. In the best case scenario, perhaps you did not literally believe your own rationale in that edit summary and were merely being WP:POINTY—yet that, too, would reflect a rather unbecoming WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. In fact, if you think using the term "scandal" in reference to the Clinton Foundation constitutes a BLP violation, it's hard to see how you could maintain that not only the "marriage scandal" section of the D'Souza article but especially the claim that D'Souza promotes "conspiracy theory"—arguably the most serious BLP violation of all—is perfectly fine and acceptable, all the while praising Oneshotofwhiskey's "constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite page ban per my comments above. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see any POV-related issues to impose a sanction upon TimesAreAChanging. Sure, his collaboration and frustration was not the best, and the edit warring on the article wasn't good either, but I don't see any specific content-related concerns that make me feel that a page ban is necessary. I think that TimesAreAChanging should take the feedback mentioned in this ANI thread to heart, and learn from his mistakes. Other than this, I feel that a page ban is unnecessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this appears to be retaliatory and unwarranted. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Page Ban for SPECIFICO

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

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

Just making a follow-up to state that edits have been made to the article by SPECIFICO since my previous response. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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.[30][31][32] 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, [33][34][35] accusing me of "personal attacks" and "harassment" for removing an out-of-place citation in an article,[36][37], 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),[38] refactoring and decontextualizing my messages on his talk page,[39] 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,[40][41][42] refusing to look at the content of my edit or even read the edit summary before reverting me,[43] referring to me diminutively as "bro" and insinuating that I lack common sense,[44] 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)

• Update Apparently PogingJuan is going to pull away from the Duterte article and will reflect on his editing. This is hopefully the end of the issue, and even if it is not I will hopefully not have to be the one to deal with it next time. I find it concerning, though, that even in saying that he realized he was wrong on the article substance he failed to recognize that the bigger problem was his repeatedly inserting of a citation that had nothing to do with the aticle substance. This means that he still doesn't get why this was wrong, and is therefore liable to do it again somewhere else. I don't mind this thread being closed now, since PogingJuan has apparently agreed to stop harassing and threatening me personally, but I still think some mentoring or other oversight would be a good idea going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If I am right, the issue here is about the citation of Galing Pook award that barely names Duterte and therefore inappropriate to include it on the article, isn't it? I have recognized that already, that it was really inappropriate as Duterte was not the recipient, though it was awarded on Davao City under Duterte admin. My explanation on Hijiri88's talk page was based on the same Galing Pook citation, stating "doing good governance is not only about the governors and mayors, but the participation of the people, especially the women" so meaning, the award was not only attributed on Duterte but also his constituents and therefore, it was really inappropriate to include the Galing Pook citation on Duterte article, and so I agree that it may be placed on maybe Government of Davao City or Davao City. And yes, as I said to Hijiri88, I will get rid myself on editing Duterte article temporarily and instead focus on other articles and creating articles for the upcoming Wikipedia Asian Month 2016. I am also really hoping that the problems regarding proper citations and neutrality on Rodrigo Duterte article will be solved. Regards. ~Manila's PogingJuan 18:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No. As I have stated numerous times, it's about the citation attached to the Galing Pook award that doesn't mention Duterte or the Galing Pook award at all. It's the one you kept edit-warring over after my concession that the actual statement about the Galing Pook award and its source could stay in the article pending consensus to remove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Ah that one! The ASEAN Cooperation on Environment source?. Oh my God, so, that is the real problem after all? I'm so stupid that I haven't looked onto your edit. I thought you have reverted it all. And that's why you have said PogingJuan, if you blankly revert me again because you didn't like PART of my edit, I will request that you be blocked per WP:CIR. I really thought you have reverted it all, just because you don't like my edit, due to our opposing views on recently-archived ANI thread. I haven't even thought that you have conceded the sentence, and for that stupidity of mine, I'm really sorry. ~Manila's PogingJuan 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I have just inserted that ASEAN Cooperation on Environment source, because it states in the citation under Awards & Recognitions the The Gender Mainstreaming Program of the Davao City Government chosen as one of the Top 10 Most Outstanding Programs in the Galing Pook Awards in 2004. You may look this screenshot. You may also look it manually at the website (if you're using Windows, you can use CTRL+F). Meaning, I have included that citation as a support citation only. Now, if that is not really necessary, we may not include that citation. Once again, I'm sorry for me barking up the wrong tree. Still, I'm not changing my stance that I will temporarily get rid of editing Duterte article, as it have affected my editing routine. ~Manila's PogingJuan 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 [45] on Cryptid in August 2016; [46] 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)

• Comment - Boy have I noticed the exact same thing with user Bloodofox. He deletes rather than discuss, he removes Cryptid redirects to "List of cryptids" because he is on a mission to remove the entire subject from wikipedia. He make continual personal attacks rather than staying on topic. I have avoided taking him to Ani because that often makes things worse, but I ran across this and had to comment. This particular topic seems to bring out the worst in him and he should probably avoid it as much as possible. Certainly he has "some" good ideas, but his blunt force method and manner of conversation is quite terrible and needs to be fixed in some way. I just had to fix his redirect of Cryptid that he had to know would upset people. He delinked the word in the Cryptozoology article also. I didn't fix that yet since I noticed this complaint. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cryptozoology is a true science, and that the articles could use more sourcing, but they are surely wikipedia compatible. Not everything is science 101 here. We have thousands of articles on tv characters, large articles on astrology, card game rules, minor league baseball players, etc.. I have brought up that the "List of cryptids" article needs more sourcing, some trimming, and some expansion, but I usually get just personal attacks and hatchet removals from Bloodofox. That's no really working with other editors as we can see by the complaints here. Even as I write this another personal strike just hit my talk page. He just doesn't get it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

When you clean up articles involving pseudoscience, you inevitably run into their proponents. Of course, they'd much prefer that the articles remain as friendly to their pet pseudosciences as possible. Fyunck is one such example (i.e., when not edit-warring without comment or trying his best to get me to edit-war, Fyunck lets the mask slip now and then with comments about his distaste for "global warming alarmists" and how much he dislikes editing with academic editors while making all sorts of pro-crypto-jibber-jabber along the way). Editors can themselves see my edit summary regarding the redirect. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

edit warring and personal attacks are what Bloodofox is best at. All one has to do is check out his edit history with me to see massive examples of both. This is simply a topic he has no control over himself with, and it's getting to be a big problem. Whenever someone calls him on his attacks and deletions he goes back to old comments to throw you off the scent. No one buys this stuff anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not even agreeing that these articles are "PSEUDOSCIENCE". Are they PSEUDOSCIENCE or "folklore"? And I am on to your evil plan to classify articles as crptids/PSEUDOSCIENCE and folklore, with your agenda to impose academic folkloric standards to these articles. All anyone has to do is look at how you have POV, WP:OWN the Troll article since you first started editing that in 2009. I can appreciate the cultural propriety with that topic and other Norse folklore that you have had your way with, but the fact remains that you have turned an edited by consensus article into a trap where only special academic folklorists work may be used as ref. It discourages editors-look at all the pleas to include Billy Goats Gruff, but no. That is not going to work with the Jersey Devil and other topics where you are trying to gain folklore sanctions and power. There IS NO PSEUDOSCIENCE on the JD page anyhow, so why is it continually mentioned by you? I'm not even agreeing that cryptozoology IS PSEUDOSCIENCE, but if it is, I don't believe that you are applying it properly here.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• bloodofox is aiming in the right direction. They have raised issues in this set of articles at the WP:FRINGEN a couple of times and i have taken a look. Many of these articles are badly sourced or unsourced and many are full of cruft. I sympathize with their efforts to clean these up, but I don't like to edit topics where there are so few high quality sources as it leads to ugly disputes like those described above. That's all I wanted to say. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  You mean Bloodofox has raised these issues at WP:FRINGEN and many other places as he canvasses for any kind of support. No one is saying these articles are science (or at least I hope not). They are more entertainment than anything else and sourcing should follow that type of protocol. As long as it's pointed out what this topic is and isn't with regards to science there should be no problem at all. But Bloodofox isn't even trying... just chopping away anything he personally doesn't like in very bully-like fashion... and that goes over quite poorly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• TeeVeed "forgot" to mention that he has been fighting a battle to maintain in-universe descriptions of things that don't exist based on crap sources. See also WP:USEFUL. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

wait-User:JzG, are you talking about me? On the JD topic, as far as "not existing", Huh? The topic exists and has been documented for over a hundred years. JD is the state demon of NJ, (OK I have not verified that-but it sounds right). I'm confused because you state in-universe, so maybe you don't mean me since the topic exists in reality. (no comment about if JD exists) And I have not noticed where Bloodofox uses "crap sources", so that's why I'm wondering who you mean here? In my personal dispute with Bloodofox, I would call origin references and topic content related to Native Americans in the area pretty "important". At one point, Bloodofox rm an infobox link to First_Reported = Native American folklore https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jersey_Devil&diff=prev&oldid=744091340 . I don't want to argue that edit at this point, but it is just another example of judgement calls on Bloodofox's part that should be examined. The mention of Native American background to the topic goes beyond WP:USEFUL and is most certainly encyclopedic.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

JzG is correct. There is no Native American origin for the Jersey Devil stories, which historically are always linked to colonial settlers. Fortunately, we can trace exactly what happened here: Loren Coleman's Mysterious America, in discussing the Jersey Devil, refers to Poquessing Creek (on the borders of Philadelphia, on the opposite side of New Jersey from the Pine Barrens) as "Popuessing" and translates it as "place of the dragon". In fact, it's consistently translated, by sources on Algonquin toponyms as "place of mice". So the only "topic content related to Native Americans in the area" relevant to the Jersey Devil is something that Coleman invented within the current century. (He also has the date wrong on when the Swedish name was bestowed, which makes his account of the "footprints" suspect.) People have been inventing spurious folklore and putting it online for a long time (e.g., the Ong's Hat project), and critical investigation and research is important to distinguish between authentic folklore and modern inventions. The removal of uncritically compiled information from unreliable sources like these by Bloodofox is improving the encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Oooh, I have to partially retract that. Joel Cook (in 1900) does refer to Poquessing as "stream of the dragons", so the error doesn't originate with Coleman, but he doesn't provide any etymology; it's possible that he read Scharf & Wescott, who say that "The ancient spelling of this name is Poetquessingh and Pouquessinge, interpreted by Lindstrom as 'Rivière de Kakamons,' or (as a variation) 'Rivière des Dragons.'" But Lindstrom's map was simply recording the Swedish names, and there's no reason to believe that this was a direction translation of "Poquessing". Choess (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Choess, it sounds like your specialization could do the Jersey Devil article a lot of good. If you're willing to put some work into bringing the article up to WP:GA standards, I'd be glad to help where I can. For much of its life the article seems to have been relegated to promoting ad links (a bunch of which I've just removed) and espousing monster hunting over discussing the complex social and historical factors that produce figures like the Jersey Devil. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

TY for considering all that User:Choess, and yeah I am suspicious about the Indian origin too, but Coleman did have it published in a book in a paragraph directly related to the Jersey Devil. So using what I've always thought are the standards we apply here, the Coleman ref is better than OR or synthesizing on my part. I'd even be willing to have some consensus about that info., and in fact opened up a RS request on the source. My problem isn't so much the JD edits or article, it is that I'm getting a WP:SPA feeling with User:Bloodofox and I did not appreciate being given incorrect editing "advice" in the edit summaries. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And User:Jytdog. Yep. Bloodofox has appealed for assistance but only assistance in Bloodofox's agenda to wipe-out cryptozoology. I think that Bloodofox either needs to get some oversight or stop editing on the topic. And yes, many good edits. The problem is the agenda-driven edits which delete (good) content and references. I would say that Bloodofox is a WP:SPA, and not only that using that SPA destructively sometimes.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

And I would advise you to re-read every comment from an experienced editor made on this thread. Above, you actually raised this diff as problematic (where content was removed that was sourced to "vernon kids" (a site for 4th graders) and this which says it is sourced in part from Wikipedia, and you say you restored it. (which you did) Oy. Just oy. Please do read WP:NOTEVERYTHING - it isn't long. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, User: Jytdog I already said that I know I made a mistake there re-adding a dead link and whatever else I did wrong there. This complaint is about incorrect advice given in summaries, and WP:Spa mostly. It wasn't until later that I noticed that User:Bloodofox had been deleting Coleman refs in particular. Not including everything (specific to the Native american info.?)may be worth talking about on the article TP, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is incorrect policy declarations/demands in edit summaries and elsewhere and acting like a SPA. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I look forward to one day producing a sub article for my user page entitled The Agenda of Bloodofox for all my nefarious deeds. Or maybe something like the Bloodofoxicon, further promoting dastardly confusion about whether or not my ancient user name is Blood o' Fox or Blood-of-Ox. But in all seriousness, all users are welcome to follow the discussion about what to do with this problematic list. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit WP with Opera latest stable beta crashes on preview page

I thought I should report this problem. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.7.12.194 (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

is this really the proper forum for this technical complaint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP EDIT BOY (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@104.7.12.194: not sure if pings work for IPs, but WP:VPT would be a better place for this. ansh666 05:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

History of unsourced and promotional edits

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

• Is it Halloween already north of the Mason-Dixon line? Hmm...autobiography...Herman Basudde (1958–1997)... :) Drmies (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No, look in his deleted contributions (or talk page). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes. After I'd opened reports at both AIV and protection noticeboards, BU Rob13, who salted the autobiography, suggested I report here. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Strange reference removals by IP

There is to bring attention to a strange removal of references by IP 46.5.0.71. across pages. [[47]] Limit-theorem (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's more than just removing references; it's removing (small bits of) content along with the removals, and adding in unsourced one-liners. This needs attention from someone who can block IPs. Argyriou (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't the IP just being warned properly and then reported at WP:AIV? If he's removing sourced information, that's well within what can be handled there. He hasn't yet received a final warning. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

And they haven't edited since 07:04 in any case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A warning would still do before any further actions, however. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 17:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure its the person who was editing under IP 24.22.226.17 before. If you look at that IP's edit log you'll see he's targeted the same group of articles and performed the same odd actions to blank and remove data. He has also used the same tactics to hide the edits; simpler edit notes, claiming it violate WP:COI or hiding the removal by adding something small and inconsequential. Assuming they are the same person the user has therefore ignored repeated attempts as communication, warning and two blocks on editing issued on 6-Oct-16 and 18-Oct-16. Unless he stops, based on the history he will edit again in about 5 to 12 days and do the same thing, but in the mean time I reported his new IP address earlier on WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 18:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• You need to request the articles in question get semi-protection at WP:RFPP, that is about the only thing that works in these cases of stealth vandalism. Their goal is simply to brag about how they undermined the integrity of Wikipedia. Life gets lonely in mom's basement, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I just ran into

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

First off, when posting here, you are required to inform the user you're complaining about. For fairness, sake, basically. I'll do that for you.

If faced by changes that lack sources, revert per WP:V and leave a note for the user in question, using (for instance) {{uw-unsourced}}. If it's obviously wrong, use {{uw-vandalism}} instead.

Kleuske (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• The changes look well intentioned even if wrong. That census link is broken, so it is hard to verify whether or not 9400 or 10000 is correct, so you can't say they are necessarily wrong. The other changes are not great but not vandalism (group -> war party, etc) And yes, notify next time, and try to discuss with them first if it looks like it might be well intentioned edits. We have a lot of rules around here, they aren't obvious to a newb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

When I find someone, as I did with this editor at Villasur expedition, just changing dates, I'll just fix it. i did not realize that I could communicate with unregistered users, so i the future I'll do that before coming here.Carptrash (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and pings

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

• I was hovering over the block button here, but as we have not heard from the editor I have final warned them. Any other admin is welcome to overrule me if they think I have been too lenient. The comments at the top of their talk page suggests I probably have been, but ... Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Black Kite, Apart from the fact he made a special personal-attack section and kept pinging me after I told him to stop, he also modified my message as seen in here and others as well around the day I noticed him again in the Guadalcanal campaign article. Not to mention, he has a history of not collaborating well with others and one need only to look at his history section to find that out. (N0n3up (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC))

Can confirm N0n3up's statement. I attempted to remove the attack section, but he repeatedly reverted any edits I made, ignoring any comments or warnings that I made. Stating that I removed his section "without knowing what happened". Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 03:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

He's playing coy. Just block him. --Tarage (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

How does this relate to Ping? I am confused, even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• The response to the warning by Black Kite was the following series of edits: [48]. I therefore believe that this editor has no intent of stopping what he's doing even after being warned it's inappropriate, and issued a week block. If this happens again, they get longer, or they get indefinite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile It means apart of creating a section dedicated to personal attack, he pings me into the page. Ping is to mention the user in a way that notifies them, which made it a nuisance.

And Seraphimblade and Lankiveil, although despite the warnings and ANIs and blocks, he still continued to make personal attacks as seen here and there referring me as "little lambikins" or something. Nevertheless, JuanRiley has had this kind of attitude all the time. Not only with me but other users such as Keith-264, Drmies, Hawkeye7 (whom he's commented against his admin candidacy) and others. And this is not the first time he's dragged me to this sort of things, he posted this a while ago in my talk page because I reverted one of his edits and made him take it to talk page. I personally believe it will take more to change Juan's actions. Yes, I've had tiffs in the past as all of us had but we change, but JuanRiley seems to be a different case. Not sure if he'll ever change. (N0n3up (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC))

RfC Closure

Hi. A user (@Sparkie82:) keeps undoing an RfC closure which is very disruptive and this is not the first time the user's been disruptive. Diffs of reverting RfC close: [49] [50] and [51]. If an admin could please reiterate to this user that the RfC has already been closed (and should remain closed) and/or block this user, that would be great. Thanks! Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Both of you should just drop the stick. Edit other topics. There's no need for this to escalate, especially since it's subject to ArbCom enforcement. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: "If you continue to flog the poor old debate, if you try to reopen it" that's exactly what Sparkie82 has been doing by undoing the RfC close. The RfC closer said that we should have a compromise discussion in a separate section (which is what I started at the talk page) so reopening the RfC does not help. This is not about "winning" or "losing" this is about trying to find a constructive compromise. And for what it's worth, my compromise proposal is actually based on Sparkie82's compromise proposal! But If I'm not mistaken there's a process for having someone's RfC closure undone (I would know since it happened to me). First you go to the closer's talk page, then if that doesn't resolve anything you go to the Admin noticeboard. But what this issue is about is Sparkie82 constantly being disruptive and getting away with it. I'm trying to find a compromise that Sparkie82 and the users that support Sparkie82's viewpoint as well as users that are against his viewpoint can back so we can put this thing behind us once and for all. But the RfC discussion is over with and if we re-opened discussion there, there's a good chance a lot of people would not realize that discussion is continuing there. That discussion has already come to a halt. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Incivility by Widr (Administrator)

It is sad that I have to report today such an esteemed editor, but I feel it must be done. Yesterday I reverted an edit by Widr from August 2015 at Camdean. I posted on his talk page and he said that the offending text that I restored was a copyright violation [52]. I asked for an explanation and told him that I would report him to ANI if he restored the edit [53]. He then sais that "The "Education" section is a word-to-word copyvio, the rest is unsourced. Have fun at ANI. I have a feeling it wouldn't be your first visit there." While I sppreceate the explanation about the copyright violation, the rest is just taunting. I am requesting a review of his administrator rights. While it may make sense that this is not my first account, I read Wikipeidia: The missing manual before I started editing [54]. Thank you for your time. Moxhay (Talk * Contribs) 13:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Moxhay:. Three things. Firstly, welcome to wikipedia. Secondly, the text you inserted into the Camdean article is a word-for-word copyvio of this: so it has to be removed. As it has been (again). Repeated violations of Wikipedia's copyrigt policy generally results in adminstartive action, so be mindful. Thirdly, his 'taunting' was probably based on the fact that if you are, as you say, a new user, then you would be unliely to know of AN/I at all; but if, as you say, you have read it in the Missing Manual then you will be aware it is clear that this board is for 'only serious, repeat attacks'- which obviously does not apply here. I dare say his suggestion stemmed from such three-day old accounts making edits such as nominating articles for deletion, merging pages, and uploading non-free images with the correct rationale, all with the use of very exact Wiki mark-up and edit-summaries. FYI. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this a troll? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking, or a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I had a look There is nothing Widr has done wrong, and I think this report should be closed as what he removed was PROVEN to be a copyvio by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Class455 (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Took too long over my post  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As a minor aside, I will mention that it would be a very good idea, going forward, for Widr to use a clear and specific edit summary if s/he removes any copyvios from articles going forward. Widr's edit to remove the original copyvio just uses the very vague-bordering-on-misleading summary "(trim)", which really doesn't explain the rationale behind the edit. It doesn't have to be long and wordy; a simple "removed copyvio" or even just "copyvio" would avoid confusion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, while it's great when people are hunting copyvios, remember that they are a serious thing but other editors aren't magic. Unless they're the ones who added the copyvio, the often aren't going to be able to know something was a copyvio and so should never be re-added if they edit summary doesn't say so and will instead assume such changes are subject to normally editing. Sometimes it could even be months or years later. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Since everyone isn't done, I reverted my close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

IPs adding sockpuppet templates and personal attacks

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

Hello.

2601:5C2:201:9CD:19D4:D557:4381:A5CC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is actually an ex-sockpuppet, IP hopper and stalker. IP geolocation analysis indicates he is the same person responsible for attempting to vandalize Microsoft Office article. ([55], [56], [57]) His target is exclusively me. I can give you more of his IP addresses but I don't think it is very relevant here. The point is: What he is reverting from List of Microsoft codenames is good material.

I don't know anything about 37.255.97.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) except his modus operandi is indefensible.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Semiprotected. Last time was a month, this time is 3. Feel free to clean up now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Copy that. Removed one {{IPSock}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Onogurs

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

---

Can someone please check what is going on here? See also here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Edit warring, likely socking. Already blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

139.195.2.121

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

It appears the user has stopped for now. I'll keep a watch on the pages however. Feinoha ^Talk 02:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

violation of wp:agf and wp:civil by Ritchie333

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

---

During the tempblock of mine, when i was requesting for either unblock or shortening of block length, the admin Ritchie333 said something to me about "not to troll the reference desk". i have taken offense to this particular expression as it implies the image of me doing it, which was never the complaint against me. see my talk page as evidence.i am taking all possible measures regarding this violation of civility.Minimobiler (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You specifically said you wanted to be unblocked because i have questions to ask in refdesk, and if this is the type of question you have in mind than Ritchie333's comment that We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to troll the reference desk is a straightforward statement of fact. This is an academic project, not a chatroom; nobody is going to sanction him for this. If you haven't already, I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental core policies. ‑ Iridescent 18:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: questions far more mundane than the one you showed was posted in refdesks in the past, by others. they were given such "chastisement"?Minimobiler (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologise for causing offence, but Iridescent has accurately described the situation. I'm not a big fan of the reference desk I'm afraid, it's not really part of our core purpose. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible misuse of tools by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

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

What specific Administrative action are you requesting? Doug Weller talk 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

A reversion of the change back to to the status quo. StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• I don't see anything about this that warrants administrative action in the slightest, much less a 3-wikiproject RFC procedure. A little perspective, please: it's a formatting change on a template, not regicide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a major formatting change affecting thousands of articles - if it's merely a lack of significant discussion that is getting in the way of the proposed change, shouldn't there be appropriate recruitment? And isn't that what the projects are for? StAnselm (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Skimming infobox talk suggests the issue concerns whether links to predecessor/successor articles use icons or text. The recent edit changed the template to use text such as Sussex rather than a flag (or other icon if no flag is applicable). Is that correct? If so, the change looks highly desirable. At any rate, to show misuse of tools there would need to be a link to a discussion showing a clear consensus that icons are preferred and that the edit disregarded that consensus. The second of the here links in the OP shows what appears to be a serious problem with the old template and fixing that problem is highly desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the bar here is really much higher as the relevant guideline says really clearly. One could make an IAR argument (which is what you are doing by saying that it seems desirable) but WP:TPE is pretty clear here and that's the standard for what's acceptable in this situation, not BRD. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not relying on IAR, I'm asserting (in my "second of the here" above) that there was a real problem, and the edit has fixed it. I'm using "appears" because I haven't studied the problem and it's conceivable that someone can show that it is great to have infoboxes with mysterious empty boxes, although they did not do that in the linked discussion. I know ANI is supposed to ignore content and enforce the rulebook, but do you have an opinion on the benefits of icons vs. text? What if there is no suitable icon? What if very few readers can identify the icon? Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The change was not just about removing the flags - it also involved moving the names to the bottom of the template. In any case, there may well have been a problem with the old template (though if so, it was a "problem" that had been around for years), but there are, I think, several different ways of fixing it. However, that is not really a discussion for this page. StAnselm (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with StAnselm here. There was no consensus for this change and it is exactly what WP:TPE says not to do. A) It is something that requires "substantial discussion" and B) the tools were used to get an upper hand in an editing dispute. The change should be reverted and discussed. As far as I can tell, the problem that this fixes has been around for a while and there was no especially pressing reason to ignore policy. Hobit (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• The complaint and responses are excessively bureaucratic if you remember how TPE came into existence in the first place. This wasn't the type of edit that should have needed approval, if it weren't for the protection getting in the way. Could someone with the tool please revert the edit per the normal and (in this instance) more appropriate WP:BRD? Then there can be a talkpage discussion about whether to reinstate the change.

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

IP, who is "we"? You started editing one day ago. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it's absurd to characterize this as a "misuse of tools" or even a "possible misuse of tools". It's also patently incorrect to continuously state that "only administrators" can edit the template: any WP:Template editor can edit the template. Fut. Perf carefully explained his rationale and linked to previous discussions [58] before making the change [59]. He also advised StAnselm where to find other competent template editors [60]. StAnselm, create an RfC if you wish, but this ANI filing smacks of disgruntled sour-grapes forum-shopping, and this content dispute should not be here. I recommend closing this thread with no action. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User:PsychopathicAssassin

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

As a miscellaneous point, FWIW, his user page has a user box that claims to have made over 500,000 edits to Wikipedia. Not under this I.D., at least. Hyperbole seems to be his forte. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surpised, there's something wrong.. now in his Talk page he says I "hate the subject". The article is anything but neutral, don't want to enter WP:3RR. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello71 3RR block review

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

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

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

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

Note: Also see related comments by 2601:1c0:4401:f360:e036:ce49:fd17:5346 and related comments by MarnetteD and Ritchie333. I'd like to highlight specifically Ritchie333's wording here of "I don't really feel that much remorse in knocking those editors down a peg or two" and "If I catch you violating 3RR again, the next block will be for a week.", which sound very much like WP:BATTLE/WP:WIN to me. ⁓ Hello71 20:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to highlight Ritchie333's use of the phrase "if he could have seen it coming, he would have behaved in a way that wouldn't have made a block necessary", which would appear to contradict his extended block reason that I could have seen it coming. ⁓ Hello71 20:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically, you were edit warring since there was no obvious vandalism. The IP was also edit warring. In my opinion, you should not have been blocked without a warning and I feel pretty strongly about that. However, Ritchie333 operated well within the boundaries of reasonable admin judgement in my opinion. In the future, withdraw before you reach four reverts (or sooner) and use other avenues to report the disruption (ANI, AIV or wait for another editor to take care of it). Ritchie333's comments on his own talk page are slightly chilling, but I guess "walk a mile in his shoes" applies.- MrX 23:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I declined Hello71's unblock request and might thus be considered somewhat involved. Still, my opinion on the questions, in order:

1. I do not see how reverting five times within ten minutes at Template:Stephen Spielberg can be considered anything but edit warring. In my opinion, none of the valid exceptions apply.
2. The IP editor was also edit warring (and was also blocked by Ritchie333).
3. You mean a warning like this one? Consider the warning you gave the IP editor a warning you received; you were well aware of the inappropriateness of edit warring.
4. Since the IP had already reverted another editor on the template (who stopped at two reverts), you could have reported them at WP:AN/3RR and waited for them to be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR yourself. Explaining on the talk page why those dates are considered useful would likely also have helped (if only to show that you aren't the one who blindly reverts without engaging in a discussion).
5. There seems to be some agreement that the edits you rolled back were not obvious vandalism. I do not see what other criterion for use of rollback applies.

As a personal aside, I'd say the most important questions here are 4. and 5. (thanks for asking those) - what to take away from this incident and how to avoid that it happens again. Unfortunately, sometimes we have to jump through hoops and go to lengths that feel bothersome when we feel we are so obviously right, but there are times when that's necessary. Happened to me, too, time and again. Huon (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With regards to the use of a report in lieu of instead of in addition to reverting, see my re-reply to question 1 above.

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

My argument previously was that both the "obvious vandalism" and "widespread unhelpful edits" criteria apply, since here we are discussing rollback and not 3RR. If we assume that the former criterion, if not necessarily inapplicable, has no consensus to be applied in this case, the latter would appear to apply nonetheless. Specifically, the edits in question are "widespread", check, "misguided", optimistic check, and "unhelpful", probably-check. The question in this case is what exactly "[supplying] an explanation in an appropriate location" means. I believe that an edit summary (if by another user) and user talk warning constitute "an explanation", particularly given that it is well-settled (I hope) that rollback may be used against non-vandalism edits such as inappropriate adding of external links with only a user talk warning, and that it would render the rollback tool utterly useless in such cases of "widespread unhelpful edits" if an edit summary was required on every page. ⁓ Hello71 02:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC) edited 03:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• When you find yourself having to write this much text defending your actions, you probably stepped over a line somewhere. But to be specific, I'm not thrilled with the block, but you were certainly edit warring and violated 3RR. It simply wasn't vandalism or even (to my untrained eye) clearly a bad edit by the IP. Or so goes my non-admin opinion on the matter. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Here's the thing, Hello71: The proper procedure when an IP is repeatedly disrupting an article or template without talk-page discussion is to request semi-protection of the page at WP:RFPP (and/or warn them on their talk page to stop edit-warring, noting that they could be blocked if they persist, and if they do persist after that then report them at WP:ANEW). The proper procedure is never to edit-war. Moreover, the edits on that template were decidedly not WP:VANDALISM, they were simply a difference of opinion. If you do not know what WP:VANDALISM is, please learn it now before proceeding to edit Wikipedia further. Although I believe that Ritchie should have talk-page warned you and given you a chance to desist before he blocked you (and I recommend that he always do that going forward), I endorse the block and I endorse the declines of the unblock requests. A further lesson to take away from this experience is that in unblock requests you need to state that you understand how you violated the relevant policy or guideline, and you need to completely avoid pointing fingers at others. I realize this is a lot of information to take in, but these three or four standard rules of thumb are basic Wikipedia protocols. Please take careful heed of them. Lastly, please initiate discussion on the talk-page of an article or template instead of blindly re-reverting non-vandalism edits. Please read WP:BRD if you do not understand this principle. I personally recommend that you at least temporarily stop using Huggle and other automated or semi-automated tools, and do some actual content-related edits on Wikipedia (always with clear edit summaries that describe exactly what you did and why). Right now you are a hammer and everything looks like a nail, and that skews your viewpoint of what editing should consist of and how it should be done. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I am in a . . ...discussion

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

---

Police Lives Matter sign in Pasco County, Florida during the United States presidential election, 2016

at Black Lives Matter about this picture. Aside from the fact that it does not really fit in the article I said that in any case I didn't thnk that anything this blatantly sectarian related to the US presidential election should be posted and the reply i received is, (I paraphrase) "What rule says that?" So, is there such a rule about not allowing campaign material being posted? Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the definition of a content dispute and does not belong here. You could try the WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Also, please read WP:DISPUTE. Kleuske (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I will look at those, but put another way, there is no generic rule against posting election propaganda on wikipedia? Carptrash (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In particular, with regard to the coming election in the United States, both normal administrative remedies and discretionary sanctions are available, based on WP:ARBAP2, but the latter is only after formal notification. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Insults, trolling, and vandalism by User:74tyhegf

74tyhegf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), accompanying their violation 1RR discretionary sanctions at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016,[61][62] began issuing personal insults ("clinton whipping boy",[63],"put up or shut up")[64], and then began vandalizing ("Hillary Clinton stooge")[65] and trolling ("that guy is obviously a stooge employed by clinton")[66] other user and user talk pages. I'm not sure whether the editor received warning of the discretionary sanctions but they have acknowledged warnings from editors not to edit war[67] or insult others.[68] I also haven't looked into their history to know whether this is a pattern. But editing user pages to call people stooges is pretty deliberate bad faith behavior, warned or not. Thanks for any help, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The constant page blanking of the editors talk page, and the comments there to date, suggest no understanding of WP:AGF

Leaving user page edits that are WP:PA, and close to incoherent unsigned comments on talk pages [69]

the diffs offered by Wikidemon speak for themselves - suggest sanction, as further warnings in all likelihood would get blanked as well JarrahTree 02:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I left the discretionary sanctions warning for the American politics topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• He also added politicians to List of Australian criminals, as you can see here , which is nothing short of disruptive editing. Ratel (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Went to 4RR on Australian Greens (albeit in 27 hours, not 24).[70][71][72][73] and left a tit-for-tat cut-and-paste edit warring notice[74] nine minutes after the person warned against edit warring.[75] — and after being notified of this discussion, to which the editor has not responded. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass unsourced BLP creation by AvonB221

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

---

Resolved

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

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

He has been blocked-I'm not sure if all of those are BLP's either though-some of those pages linked to a page of rugby players and he added some that said they played over 50 years ago, so they may or may not be alive. Either way it was way too much. They all said the same thing also. Wgolf (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Eodcarl

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

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

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

Imho, what he stated at Talk:Jesus was because he is a true believer in biblical inerrancy and cannot accept that some Christians do not consider the Bible infallible. Nor does he accept that non-Christian scholars have the right to study Jesus and the Bible, or that non-Christian editors have a right to edit Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, Eodcarl is not done. [76][77]. General Ization ^Talk 04:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Bullies prove my point. Eodcarl (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Good lord the arguments he is making on the Jesus talk page. No true Scotsman fallacy anyone? --Tarage (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah okay he's still edit warring. Someone needs to put a stop to this. --Tarage (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion here (and should be in bed). We've had a discussion at Talk:Nat Turner and I have been a bit too long winded. I can't say whether or not Eodcarl's editing has been constructive, although we've reverted each other there, maybe more than should have been done. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Strong words at Talk:Jesus: "moron", "garbage", claims that most US universities are corrupted by "false teachings". Probably WP:NOTHERE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably. But such language is generally permitted on talk pages, and - not being directed at editors - is not considered a personal attack (rightly or wrongly). Indeed, editors are welcome to believe Ehrman is a moron just as they are welcome to believe he is not a moron. Editors are welcome to believe in inerrancy just as they are welcome to believe the Bible contains mistakes. StAnselm (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

He/she is certainly failing to provide the sources to support his/her edits or to defend them in a rational way and blanking the initial notice on this page would seem actionable. However, I would advise people to be careful about triggering the 3-revert rule on themselves. A totally different world view. --Erp (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

He is also refusing to discuss his edits over on Saint Peter. I'll admit I just reverted him a third time, but I frankly have no idea what else I'm supposed to do if the guy is unwilling to discuss things before he continues to edit.Farsight001 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe his intention is to bait regulars into getting themselves blocked. If I am not mistaken, he could be a sockpuppet of Til Eulenspiegel: he is an uncompromising biblical literalist and has a disruptive intervention in articles about African-Americans. Anyway, he is edit warring in several articles at the same time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a more clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE. Where the content is concerned, he doesn't seem to have the slightest concern for this project's purpose, nor it's policies; he is rather here to push an extreme POV born of his religious beliefs because "One must have the Holy Spirit to understand scripture", "It is not possible to know Jesus without being a Christian" and "it is impossible to be a Christian and say God's word has errors". Thus, in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, he is willing to engage in extensive edit warring, subversion of process, personal attacks on other editors, vocal animosity towards atheists and non-Christians anywhere near the topic of Christianity and numerous other forms of disruptive editing.

The red flag that set me to looking into his history here was the fact that he attempted to remove this thread by blanking it from ANI. Having since spent the last hour and a half checking through his recent edits, I am gobsmacked that he has gone as long as he has without being restrained. This is not your average grey-area case of disruption: this editor has blatantly stated that he has no interest in building the encyclopedia, beyond making it conform to his brand of religious dogma, and that he has no interest in applying (or even attempting to understand) how policy or community consensus operate on this project. I provide my absolute support for an indefinite block as the only measure that seems viable in containing this rampage of edit warring, disruption and incivility, conducted for the purpose of a religious fervor that seems unlikely to change; this user is not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia--he's here to preach the gospel, literally. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Eodcarl has been blocked two weeks by Doug Weller. EEng 07:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(EC): A necessary intermediate measure to stop the edit warring, no doubt--but given the user's absolutist religious views, idiosyncratic views on race and nationality, hostility towards conflicting perspectives, animosity towards non-Christians working in Christian topic areas, and general lack of respect for others or for the processes of this project, where they get in the way of his ideology, can we have any reasonable expectation that the behaviour will reform after the block? I'm generally the party arguing for a great deal of leeway, but I think in this case it is only reasonable to conclude that we are holding open the door for more disruption and massive incivility if we don't adopt an indef here. In short, this is WP:SNOWBALL meets behavioural issues. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen this when I blocked. I'll consider an indefinite block. Going out shortly for a few hours to see Dr. Strange in 4Dx, back this afternoon and will look at this discussion again. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)