Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive937

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

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

Per WP:IAR and Drmies: Kama karibu hii inaonekana ni vigumu kusoma, fikiria jinsi ilivyokuwa kusoma ripoti hii. Hii ni nyingi mno wa fujo kwa kujaribu kutatua. Kila mtu tafadhali kwenda nyuma ya kuandika makala. Sisi wote kuwa na furaha wakati wa uchaguzi ni juu, bila kujali ni nani atashinda. Dennis Brown - 11:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Even unhelpful closes should be accessible to all. Translation from Swahili, for anyone who (1) doesn't know how to use Google Translate and (2) cares what this says: "If this seems to be almost impossible to read, think about how it was to read this report. This is too much of a mess to try to solve. Everyone please go back to writing articles. We can all be glad when the election is over, regardless of who wins." ―Mandruss  18:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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.[1] 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".[2] 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.[3] 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".[4] 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)
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[edit]

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[edit]

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... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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[edit]

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[5] and they collapsed it referring to me as a "troll".[6] 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,[7] and 21 minutes after I posted this initial comment.[8] 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."[9] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Onogurs[edit]

(non-admin closure) Drmies blocked the IP and protected the article (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

violation of wp:agf and wp:civil by Ritchie333[edit]

Nothing here that warrants any admin action. Sam Walton (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am in a . . ...discussion[edit]

Not a matter for ANI, but good info posted anyway. Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit WP with Opera latest stable beta crashes on preview page[edit]

The appropriate venue for such issues is WP:VPT. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility by Widr (Administrator)[edit]

Filer/OP blocked for sockpuppetry by DoRD. (non-admin closure) Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 [10]. I asked for an explanation and told him that I would report him to ANI if he restored the edit [11]. 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 [12]. 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 - 14:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
This user is almost 100% a troll, and likely a block evader of some sort as well. Actually, it seems like this user is interested in editing articles related to the U.S. state of Maine. I have a recollection of Widr blocking some users/IP's that had made serial attacks to Maine related articles in the recent past. This is just one of many of them, (I know there's more, but couldn't find them) but maybe this isn't related at all, I dunno... Since this user is very new, Widr's comment, Have fun at ANI. I have a feeling it wouldn't be your first visit there. is totally justified, and I agree with him that they have probably been here before... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello IP! Do you believe this warrants a SPI? Dat GuyTalkContribs 00:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@DatGuy: Possibly, but I don't know who the master account would be if a SPI were to be made for this. But it's pretty obvious, and what Widr was most likely getting at here, is that this user has probably known the ins and outs of Wikipedia for much longer than from the duration from when their account was created to now, and how this user even knows what ANI is... I can sense a BOOMERANG coming straight for us...! 2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The user with an interest in Maine is ItsLassieTime. Cough. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Perhaps. However, won't he go to one of the other blocking administrators? I'd suggest a CheckUser check the account due to its first edit, however it is a bad day to catch some Salmon. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just ran into[edit]

If a user is being disruptive, please warn them appropriately and then report at WP:AIV for obvious vandalism/disruption. Coming straight to ANI isn't going to accomplish anything. BU Rob13 07:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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 - 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

139.195.2.121[edit]

Appears to be withdrawn by the nominator, and this is a content dispute in any case. ~ Rob13Talk 07:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

139.195.2.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible misuse of tools by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

Future Perfect acted appropriately per strong concensus here. WP:STICK should be read as needed. Closing before the aboriginal weapons get tossed (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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 incorrect to characterize this as a "misuse of tools" or even a "possible misuse of tools". It's also patently incorrect to continuously state that "only administrators" can edit the template: any WP:Template editor can edit the template. Fut. Perf carefully explained his rationale and linked to previous discussions [13] before making the change [14]. He also advised StAnselm where to find other competent template editors [15]. 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)
Who said anything about "only administrators" can edit the template? Quite clearly this is about the template editor user right, which is a right that admins have, but other editors have it too. But both admins and non-admins are required to use the right in like with WP:TPE. This thread is not about the content dispute - it is about the procedural issue. And indeed, I was not coming here for advice on how to structure the template (the content issue), but to request the initial "bold" edit be reverted (the procedural issue). StAnselm (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
"I can't do it since I'm not an admin", "it has a change that has been without a proper consensus, and cannot be reverted by non-admins". ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify: there was no misuse of process here. WP:TPE doesn't demand a fully-formed multi-party consensus prior to editing; it explicitly allows to propose an edit and then go ahead if no objections are raised "after a few days". This edit was effectively proposed half a year ago [16], and no objections were raised ever since. It is true that I didn't judge it necessary to wait again when I (re-)proposed this step as a concrete implementation this time – but even if I had, there were no objections forthcoming, so I would have ended up making the edit all the same, if a few days later. The first objection to the edit only came two weeks after my proposal, the first reasoned objection another week later, and both these objections would not have come at all if I had waited on (because the users in question never saw the discussion but were only alerted to it after seeing the change in effect). Fut.Perf. 09:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree the "after a few days" part is certainly there, but it is clarified in more detail below. In your opinion, which of Wikipedia:Template_editor#When_to_seek_discussion_for_template_changes apply here? I'd argue the first, what do you think? In any case, the entire point of WP:TPE is that you shouldn't be winning an edit war due to having advanced permissions. Given that at least two editors indicated they would have reverted your changes if they could, that is exactly what's happening here. Hobit (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Posting from self-admitted harassment sock removed. – Fut.Perf. 12:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
That makes two (apparently) IPs here unwilling to use their accounts. Come on folks, sniping from the peanut gallery doesn't carry much weight. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I see you had an opportunity to deal with the socks, could you also answer my question? Hobit (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a level of changes that requires "several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal" but this change was more significant than that - and so it needed substantial discussion. StAnselm (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: To StAnselm and Hobit: As of now I note more editors in favor of the change that Fut. Perf made than against it (I'm counting editors in this thread and on the talk page and also myself, since in the example provided I think his change is superior, and as Johnuniq notes it obviates empty boxes). In the end, it's highly unlikely that any admin or template editor is going to revert Fut. Perf's change without discussion. So in the end, this is nothing more than a content dispute, and if this thread and the example are any indication, one that will end up in favor of Fut. Perf's change. I recommend that no more time be wasted on this on ANI. If an RfC is desired, please institute that. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The issue at hand is that advanced permissions were used inappropriately and when question the edit wasn't undone. In fact, you just listed all the problems _with_ this edit.
      • "So in the end, this is nothing more than a content dispute" that's exactly right. And it's an admin using a permission bundled with the being an admin to win a content dispute.
      • "In the end, it's highly unlikely that any admin or template editor is going to revert Fut. Perf's change without discussion." Exactly. That's why the discussion is supposed to happen first.
Yes, this may well be the right place to end up. But advanced permissions should not be used to win a content dispute, and that's exactly what has happened here IMO. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Note to StAnselm and Hobit: Both of you appear to erroneously believe that, as Hobit puts it above, "it's an admin using a permission bundled with the being an admin to win a content dispute." There is absolutely no evidence for that. Fut Perf made a well-explained change based on prior requests/discussions that he linked to. When his change was questioned two to three weeks later he suggested multiple times to involve other template editors and/or other admins [17], [18], [19]. There is absolutely no evidence that Fut. Perf made his change in order to preempt discussion or prevail over anybody else. Discussion had already occurred; he made the change; he then gave clear instructions of how to adjudicate the matter when questioned. Since it is obvious the change is preferred by a majority of editors, this ANI thread has become unnecessary. Please drop the stick and stop the time-waste here, as ANI is no longer the proper venue for this. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I think you agree this is a content dispute--you described it as one above. Those objecting to the changes can't revert because doing so involves advanced permissions. There had been a discussion on this same topic and there was no consensus to make the change. Once objections were raised and it wasn't reverted, there was an editor winning a content dispute due to advanced permissions. So yes, I think I've described the situation correctly.
The way Wikipedia's advanced permissions work, in theory (policy) as well as mostly in practice, is that advanced permissions should not be used to win a content dispute. That is what is clearly happening here as we have an editor who objects and would have reverted if they could. And there wasn't anything close to the consensus policy asks ("substantial discussion" is the exact wording) for before making that change. Was it a reasonable BOLD edit? It wasn't within policy as I read it, but it also wasn't unreasonable in my opinion (BRD, IAR, etc.). But once someone objected, the change needs to be reverted and discussed. It's a simple and reasonable request that anyone with the rights to edit the template could have forced by simply reverting. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you need to read the links I provided: [20], [21], [22]. It would have been adverse for Wikipedia for FP to revert his own change (as he explained on the talk page [23], [24]), so he gave ample instructions three times on how to get the change reverted if a revert was desired. There is no point in reverting against the current WP:CONSENSUS -- do you agree? So what exactly do you want here? A de-sysop? That's not going to happen. For FP to say his change was out-of-process? That's not going to happen, and he has stated why several times [25], [26], [27]. For a consensus judgment that FP did a bad thing or violated a policy? That's not going to happen. For the change to be reverted? That's not going to happen. Thus this ANI thread, which was started in bad faith in the first place, is by now a waste of everyone's time. It has become WP:POINTY in the extreme. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
So Hobit has taken to reverting over the closure of this thread now [28], saying there is some open question he asked me. Hmm, yes, apparently there is, somewhere further up, something about the legalistic interpretation of some verbiage at WP:TPE. I don't find that question very interesting, and it's pretty much moot at this point (when a substantial consensus for the edit in question has effectively formed through endorsements by several users here). Does anybody else besides Hobit think that question still needs an answer? If not, I rather think I'm going to ignore it. Fut.Perf. 06:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. It's asking you a question about the heart of the matter. Admins are really supposed to respond to questions about their tool use even if they don't find it interesting. Hobit (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This section shows significant support for the change by FPaS, and very little objection to the procedure used. That means it is StAnselm and Hobit versus the community, not versus one admin. How about responding to my comment at 06:59, 30 October 2016 above? Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Nope. You already covered it in the links I provided Hobit, who is exhibiting a classic case of WP:IDHT (and IDIDNTREADTHAT), above: [29], [30], [31]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PsychopathicAssassin[edit]

I've warned the user. If they continue edit warring, you can report this at WP:AN3. ~ Rob13Talk 08:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass unsourced BLP creation by AvonB221[edit]

Blocked. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 · edit 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eodcarl[edit]

User indef blocked, and talk-page access removed. If the user harasses anyone via email, please let Doug Weller know, per his request. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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.