Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Duplicate entry

Yesterday, while going through all the pre-2015 sections to group them by theme for discussion (see above), I removed a duplicate entry,[1] and today I was reverted by X1\,[2] who claimed "This has been discussed multiple times before, see exact wording." Please show me where this particular entry has been discussed, and what is the wording problem you are alluding to. — JFG ^talk 21:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

In 2013, a hacker (or hackers) apparently obtained access to the Trump Organization’s domain registration account and created at least 250 website subdomains that cybersecurity experts refer to as “shadow” subdomains. Each one of these shadow Trump subdomains pointed to a Russian IP address, meaning that they were hosted at these Russian addresses. (Every website domain is associated with one or more IP addresses. These addresses allow the internet to find the server that hosts the website. Authentic Trump Organization domains point to IP addresses that are hosted in the United States or countries where the company operates.) The creation of these shadow subdomains within the Trump Organization network was visible in the publicly available records of the company’s domains.

from associated reference. It is not clear that it is duplicate, and we must not assume beyond the RS. No OR/Synth. One part says a year and another, related, part has dates. If it were "duplicate", the information would need to be combined, but can't because we can't assume. X1\ (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, we have the exact same event listed at 2013 and at August 2013, cited from the same source.

2013: Apparent hackers gain access to the Trump Organization's domain registrar account at GoDaddy and register hundreds of "shadow" subdomains with IP addresses located at a company in St. Petersburg known for hosting websites containing malware. In November 2017, the subdomains begin disappearing after the Trump Organization is contacted about the apparent breach, though the company denies any breach occurred.

August 2013: Hackers gain access to the Trump Organization's domain registrar account at GoDaddy and register hundreds of "shadow" subdomains with IP addresses located at a company in St. Petersburg known for hosting websites containing malware. In November 2017, the subdomains disappeared after the Trump Organization was notified of the issue, although the company denies that any breach occurred.

I fail to understand your problem with keeping only the "August 2013" mention. — JFG ^talk 19:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Read the source reference again. Not "exact same". X1\ (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Both passages use the exact same citation to the Mother Jones article, and say exactly the same thing save for minor copyedits ("the subdomains begin disappearing" vs "the subdomains disappeared", "is contacted about the apparent breach" vs "was notified of the issue"). What the heck are you talking about? Again, when was this "discussed multiple times before", according to you? — JFG ^talk 21:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@X1\: You have been silent on this thread while editing other parts of the timeline. Do you admit this was a duplicate entry? — JFG ^talk 01:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Admit"? Again, see WP:NOTBATTLE. Then see 23:30, 14 February 2019 revert of User:Ashkantork with ES to my revert (17:33, 21 January 2019) from one of your previous mass deletion edit storms. Take your disruption elsewhere. X1\ (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: I've added an example for my "again" comment (above), for clarity to other potential readers of this thread. X1\ (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please retract your aspersions and stop deflecting. What is the material difference between the above "2013" and "August 2013" entries, and why do you insist that we should keep both? — JFG ^talk 23:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Having two near-identical entries is completely redundant. Either the 2013 one should be removed or they both should be substantially modified to have some kind of significant distinction between the two entries. The reference in question is Corn, David; Vicens, AJ (November 1, 2017). "Hackers Compromised the Trump Organization 4 Years Ago—and the Company Never Noticed". Mother Jones. Retrieved January 11, 2019. I believe the two relevant passages from that source are:

In 2013, a hacker (or hackers) apparently obtained access to the Trump Organization’s domain registration account and created at least 250 website subdomains that cybersecurity experts refer to as "shadow" subdomains. Each one of these shadow Trump subdomains pointed to a Russian IP address, meaning that they were hosted at these Russian addresses. and

The available historical data for these shadow subdomains indicate most of them were created in August 2013. When they first were set up, the shadow subdomains were aimed at one of 17 IP addresses on a network that was based in St. Petersburg, Russia, and they were hosted on servers owned by a company called the Petersburg Internet Network, a server provider with a reputation for hosting nefarious actors.

I'm not seeing a rationale for the two separate entries, but is that the point you are trying to argue, X1\? Do you also think there should be an entry in October 2013 to include this point from the article as well?

The shadow Trump Organization subdomains point to IP addresses in the range between 46.161.27.184 and 46.161.27.200—and these addresses are part of a larger network. In October 2013, a security researcher identified a website called BewareCommaDelimited.org deploying an exploit kit that was intended to pilfer passwords and other information from targeted computers and noted it was associated with this IP address: 46.161.27.176. That IP address is within the same network as the IP addresses used for the shadow Trump Organization subdomains—an indication that these subdomains might have been part of a network used to deploy malware against other computers. Are we also going to include every single potential action sourced from this single article? Do you see how slippery this slope is?

Barring substantial reasons for having separate entries (ideally sourced beyond this one speculative-ish Mother Jones source), I think the August 2013 mention is fine and the 2013 entry should be removed. Actually, I could even see a rationale for removing both entries given the source not explicitly stating the information as factual ("apparently" in the source), but that is probably a bridge too far at this point. - Paul^T+/_C 05:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: I am not against rewording one or both of the items, but we have to be faithful to the source. Since the source says a year one place then a month with in a year, we can't assume the year in the reference is that month (many months between January and August). That is what David Corn wrote, and we can't change that. Awkward? Yes. Faithful to the source. Yes. X1\ (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So simply remove the August entry then. There is no reason for the duplication. Keeping both implies that the distinct actions happened twice, which is certainly not supported by the source either. - Paul^T+/_C 21:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Psantora in that the beginning of 2013 would have priority over "August". I've started an initial combine of the items (see my ESs). Better rewording would helpful. X1\ (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References

The list of individuals

I encourage everybody to use the search function on their computer, Control-F, and search some of these names that appear in this list. I shouldn't be surprised, but it certainly was surprising to me that most of these names or at least half were not mentioned at all in the rest of the article, with more mentioned only once. There are clearly a few things we can do about this.

• Remove names that do not appear elsewhere in the article.
• Remove names that only appear once (or twice) elsewhere in the article.
• Discuss whether we need this list of names at all.

Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Names that do not appear elsewhere in the article should be removed. Which names, exactly, are you talking about? But having the list of names seem to be helpful. Why not? My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, please stop incorrectly removing names from this list because you think it "does not appear on the page". That name for example appears on Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018). There are three other pages you need to consult before removing names: 2017, 2018, and 2019. The list here is transcluded on all four pages. - Paul^T+/_C 23:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You are probably right because these different pages are very closely related, so the transclusion was a good idea. I therefore self-reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That name doesn't appear on the page though. It only appears on another page, which is irrelevant. If that causes problems for other pages, then they should end the transclusion. If necessary, the old list can be copied from old revisions of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The list of names is shared with the 2017–2019 timelines of investigations, which may explain why some names are not on this page. Nevertheless, I agree that many names are minor characters and undue for this list. Happy to discuss which ones should be trimmed, and which ones should be kept. — JFG ^talk 20:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

^This. There are 3 additional separate articles that all have that list transcluded to them. (As an aside, see also Appendix B of the Mueller Report#Appendices, which has a similar list of terms, organization, and people. Echoing some of my earlier comments, I believe this list should be the baseline of who gets included here at the absolute minimum.) I'd be interested to know which names are on this list that are not present in any of the timeline-related articles where the section is repeated. (Also, put this down as yet another reason why a Centralized talk page makes sense.) - Paul^T+/_C 20:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that a centralized talk page would help, but unfortunately that proposal was opposed. — JFG ^talk 21:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

More like no consensus, but that is par for the course on this page. - Paul^T+/_C 21:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: As you can see how cluttered the deletionist/denialist/obscurantist have made this Talk page ... just image imagine what could happen at a combined Talk page. X1\ (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Internet Research Agency -> IRA

Regarding this edit by My very best wishes, I don't think that is a good idea. You are right that it is a confusing term. (It is not Irish Republican Army/The IRA!) Nor is it a common abbreviation, but it has been used extensively over the past couple of years (specifically in the Mueller Report). If properly defined in the top section, it can (and should, after the first full mention in prose) be used as the abbreviation as appropriate throughout the article. Also, please be mindful of WP:OVERLINK. - Paul^T+/_C 23:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You would be right if it was an ordinary article/page. However, this is a very long list. Consider someone looking at the contents on the top, and then jumping to a year XXXX. He would not see what this abbreviation means (this is typically Irish Republican Army or Individual Retirement Account). The multiple internal linking is for the same reason. That's why I did it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Self-reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: if of continued interest, the "IRA or not" was discussed long ago, and you might find it in Talk history/Archives. If you can't find it, I'll find a pointer and post it here. X1\ (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, here, and some others also thought that was confusing. The misleading abbreviations like that have been a matter of numerous jokes among scientists. So, I would still suggest to fix it per justification above. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about this Rick Davis (political consultant) one as McCain's campaign manager

July 2007 – November 2008: Davis is McCain's presidential campaign manager.

I haven't looked to see who and why it was originally added. X1\ (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources

From Awilley's talk page

Re @My very best wishes: So, you still think that quotation above does not support inclusion of Butina to the page about the Russian "interference" to the elections? Correct. Re @BullRangifer: That is content which obviously belongs. She was even convicted and will serve time in jail for her role as a Russian agent in the election interference. How much more "on-topic" can it get? That's hardly a "tenuous connection". Not for interference in the 2016 election, but the point here is that this was discussed and the consensus decided it was not relevant, so it wasn't simply my own considered judgment like other times I had removed content have been. So with this example, you're deleting 23,722‎ bytes of a clear example of Russian interference from the "Timeline of Russian interference....", and not only just mentions of Trump. This is a very large article so obviously edits that reduce its size are likely to be larger. The whole point was that this had very little to do with Donald Trump and the 2016 election.

I also hope that BullRangifer reflects on what they have written, and regrets. You have some strange ideas about what should be deleted and I'm suspecting you're not qualified to make such decisions. The fact that you're getting push back should cause you to stop doing it and stay off that page and the whole subject, completely. Awilley, maybe an AP2 topic ban for 123IP would be best for everyone's sake, because 123IP has made no positive contributions, done nothing but create a lot of controversy, spark extremely long and hot talk page discussions, and displayed a serious case of IDHT. If I said this on an article talk page I'd get sanctioned, but it needs to be said and here is the place to say it. The time for discussion is over and action needs to be taken to stop them from pillaging the article and creating disruption on the whole topic. This has been a huge time sink for everyone and we shouldn't have to watch 123IP's every move. I've been here since 2003 and I've never encountered an editor who constantly pushes for deleting so much material, especially against the objections of other editors. Vandals try it, but that's different. We just revert and block them. Maybe they should be placed in that category because the effect of their actions is the same, but I think a topic ban would be better. Maybe they can do some good in a less controversial area (their IP liked cartoon characters), but a ban on deletions would also be good. I'm copying this here to demonstrate this person's motivations, and I hope they come back to this with greater maturity. These kinds of personal attacks should not at all be a factor in editorial discussions.

They'd get to add, edit, and improve content, but not delete any content, and no discussions about deleting as such discussions would quickly get long. Now this is simply desperate. The problem with the article is that it's overpopulated. Nobody is concerned that the article doesn't have enough content so this is just ridiculous. I could understand if this was only me who was saying there is content that should be removed, but this is what most people on the talk page are saying, and they've been saying it before I got here. Clearly some editors here are under the delusion, quite frankly, that this is somehow a good article, rather than the unreadable mess that it is. I even received some strange description that this article isn't really supposed to be an article but it's supposed to be some sort of file drawer that one would find in a library. There's clearly a lot of changing the purported scope of the article in the minds of some people in order to justify this article which would be better described as some kind of written detective drama.

Most of all, I invite all editors to collaborate around the task of finding what parts of the article can be reasonably removed, and not object to any suggestions of such based on these wild speculations that there is some effort to destroy the article by this. I am happy to speak with editors privately if it would help. This was the first time I recall that I've had editors follow me to other articles and revert my edits there so I certainly think the tone needs to be taken right down, and good faith among all should be comprehensively assumed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No comment as this is not User:Awilley's talk page. What I said there still stands and its truth is being demonstrated here. I'll let others deal with this mess as I still believe that if RS connect something to this subject, then it's on-topic here and should not be deleted en masse. That's a view based on policy, and that should be respected. No local "consensus" should overturn that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no policy that says substantial amounts of content cannot be removed from articles if there is consensus to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This depends on the content to be removed. For example, removing well sourced, well written and relevant to the subject "majority" views from a page (I think that is what you do [3]) goes against WP:NPOV, and WP:NPOV overrides WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

About Butina and Torshin

Maria Butina has nothing substantive to do with the 2016 election. All that information regarding her can be moved elsewhere, which would make that information far more visible. You have very bizarre views on how Wikipedia policies work. Of course removing that information from the article is not against WP:NPOV. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Once again, Here is section of discussion in question, and it is typical for this discussion. I cited sources that support inclusion, including that one. Does not that source (an others on talk and on the page) support that Butina should be included to this list? Let's see. This source tells:

And July’s indictment of Mariia Butina, a Russian national who sought to infiltrate both the Trump campaign and the NRA before the election, also raised questions about the group’s status as a potential intermediary between Trump and the Russians. Butina was charged with acting as an agent of a foreign government without notifying the Justice Department. Butina was the first person to ask Trump in public about his position on Russian sanctions — during a 2015 event in Las Vegas — and tried to broker a meeting between Trump and her Russian handler, Alexander Torshin, at an NRA convention in May 2016.

How can you argue that the inclusion is not supported by sources? My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all it wasn't my decision to remove the stuff about Butina, that was a consensus decision. Maybe one entry about Butina attempting to hold a meeting with Trump is worthy of a mention, but even then it's not really an attempt to interfere, it's an attempt to attempt to interfere if anything. Most certainly this doesn't justify the fifty-nine mentions of Maria Butina in this article. So if we were to remove all the detail about Maria Butina but retained something about this attempted meeting, I would be fine with that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Butina should only be mentioned in relation to her attempting to contact the Trump campaign. Her life background and NRA-connected activities are irrelevant. — JFG ^talk 23:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: again, as you know, this is a list, a Timeline. Maria Butina is an admitted and convicted Russian spy who infiltrated the NRA and the GOP. Give your b.s. machine a break; and since JFG started a DRN posting, take it there, only. X1\ (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Maria Butina's connections to the National Rifle Association can go on a list or timeline related to Russian government involvement in the NRA, if not the article about herself. I would not be against creating a new article that detailed her connections and attempted connections to the NRA, which would effectively be a split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No. The involvement of Butina, Torshin, Simes, etc. is a complex story. Arbitrary selecting only one episode, while sources on the "interference" tell about many, is against WP:NPOV and degrades the time line. My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

While she is not known to be a trained spy (although described as using the methods of a Red Sparrow), her actions as Torshin's helper were directly related to the Russian government's attempts to get close to presidential candidates and to influence the election and American politics, and she used the NRA and gun rights activism to do that. The NRA was also used as a conduit for illegal election contributions to the GOP and presidential campaigns. The Russians were pouring illegal money into Trump's campaign in several ways. I suggest you read this article about Butina's role. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, she was not a spy, but an agent of influence. I like the movie, but it is mostly a fantasy, and the expression "Red sparrow" has also been invented. There is such expression in Russian, but a literal translation would be "Chekist swallow". My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear that Butina wanted to influence American opinion. We can just as well read her actions (and Torshin's) as trying to gain support from U.S. people to influence Russian opinion on gun ownership. That explains how she got Bolton to speak for gun rights in Russia! In any case, whatever she did belongs on her own biography and on the NRA page, rather than here. Mueller charged plenty of Russians as having been instrumental in the Russian election meddling, but he didn't charge Butina: he referred her to an outside prosecutor for other reasons (not registering as a foreign agent). So, yes she was a foreign agent working for a Russian official (Torshin), but no she was not involved in the 2016 election interference operation. — JFG ^talk 18:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

How come? According to the source (link bt BR),

Butina was the first Russian national convicted of seeking to influence American policy in the run-up to the 2016 election, though her case was handled by the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia and the Justice Department’s national security division, not by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

.

Yes, one can dispute the degree of her actual influence (it was mostly on the NRA, sure), but she certainly was discussed in RS in connection with the influence in the 2016 elections, and this is the reason for inclusion.My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my comments here. Yes, I would object to moving them to another section. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: you are welcome. It should have never been done per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. X1\ (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Some sources say that Butina tried to interfere in the election on two separate ocassions: (1) in 2015 in Las Vegas, she asked Trump for his position on Russian sanctions and (2) she tried to arrange a meeting between Trump and Alexander Torshin at an NRA convention in May 2016. I do not object to including this information but nothing else about her in this article can be construed as interference. I mean in order to make these flagrant attempts at interference, she would first have to be born in Russia, travel to the U.S., learn to shoot, join the NRA, etc. But it's a wild stretch of the imagination that she did all these things as part of her alleged plan to help subvert the 2016 election. TFD (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You personally can consider this to be "a wild stretch of the imagination" or impossible (everyone is entitled to an opinion), but RS discuss her actions in connection to the "interference" (see quotations above), and therefore, her actions, which appears in the sources in connection to the "interference", should be included to the list. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Now, speaking about the "wild stretch of the imagination that she did all these things as part of her alleged plan to help subvert...". Yes, I agree, this is a ridiculous assumption, but an assumption that only you are making. Of course she did not plan anything herself. That was all planned by other people who decided to create the front "Russian NRA" organization, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Except they don't. Certainly sources that mention Butina provide information about her beyond her alleged attempts to interfere in the election but it is your imagination that connects the dots and interprets it as part of a decades long plot to subvert the 2016 election. (Apparently she is also accused to infiltrating the NBA.) It's very fine to say look at the quotes. Which specific quote says that she attempted to interfere in the election other than on those two occasions? Have exactly were the other attempts? Did she canvass door to door for Trump, abuse a Wikipedia account, retweet the hashtag CROOKEDHILLARY? TFD (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you do agree about "two occasions" that should be included to the timeline? OK. If there are any occasions not supported by sources, they could be excluded, but I do not see them. Which ones? My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the two occasions because they and only they were identified in the Mueller report as attempts to influence the election. Please see Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." There are verifiable sources for example that Caesar died in 44 BC, but it has little to do with this article. Only when sources identify her activity as interference in the election should it be included. For example, Butina's founding of the Right to Bear Arms in 2011 has no relevance to the 2016 election. TFD (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously what should happen now is that all mentions of Maria Butina except for "two occasions" should be removed, with discussion still potential on those two occasions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD. Once again, "Butina's founding of the Right to Bear Arms in 2011 has no relevance to the 2016 election". Tells who? You? Let's check the sources. For example, here is a publication in RS. The title: Timeline: The odd overlap of Maria Butina, the gun-rights movement and the 2016 election. Timeline and the 2016 election. That is the the subject of this page. What reliable sources do include to the timeline, as it relates to Butina and the election "interference"?

2011. Maria Butina forms Right to Bear Arms in Russia. The aim of the organization mirrors that of the NRA: Broadening Russians’ access to firearms.

April 15, 2012: Alexander Torshin, a former Russian senator and lifetime member of the NRA, tweets about Butina’s group, comparing it to the NRA. His longstanding relationship with Butina and biographical descriptions included in the complaint make it clear that the “RUSSIAN OFFICIAL” identified in the document is Torshin.

2013: Per the complaint, Butina allegedly makes contact with an American political operative (“U.S. Person 1” in the complaint), who agrees to introduce her to influential figures in American politics. That includes a “gun rights organization,” identified contextually within the complaint as the NRA. She noted her relationship with the NRA and past interactions with Republican officials in the email, anticipating a $125,000 budget to be spent on major political conferences. Person 1 responded with suggestions about people with whom she should meet and some strategic recommendations.

April 24, 2015: Butina attends the NRA convention in Nashville. There she and Torshin meet Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.), who reportedly greets her in Russian.

June 12, 2015: Writing for National Interest, Butina argues that a Republican president might be the only way to improve relations with Russia. After the article was published, she sent it to Torshin, who approved.

July 11, 2015: Butina asks Trump a question at FreedomFest, a libertarian event held that year in Las Vegas. As president, she asked, would Trump continue the sanctions imposed against Russia in 2014?

...Other events from the source...

Jan. 20, 2017: President Trump is inaugurated. Butina attends one of the inaugural balls.

Feb. 2, 2017: Butina and Torshin attend the prayer breakfast. Feb. 6, 2017: Butina allegedly thanks a prayer breakfast organizer for meeting with her and suggests she has “important information” for the organizer. She asks for a follow-up meeting.

Feb. 8, 2017: Butina allegedly emails Person 2 to thank him. “My dearest President has received ‘the message’ about your group initiatives and your constructive and kind attention to the Russians,” she writes.

Jan. 18, 2018: McClatchy reports that Mueller’s team is investigating the NRA’s role in the 2016 election. In a letter released several months later, the group indicates having received only about $2,500 from “people associated with Russian addresses.”

April 6, 2018: Torshin is one of more than 20 Russians sanctioned by the American government in response to Russian interference in 2016, among other incidents.

The list in the source) covers also the years 2016 to 2018. All of that should be included to our time line per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Now, if there are other sources telling something else should be included, we should include more per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• As a general reminder, this page is NOT timeline of Mueller investigation, and NOT about the alleged "collusion" or "obstruction of justice" by one person. This is a general timeline of "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections", which did happen as a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Constantly accusing others of determining content to be irrelevant on the basis of personal opinion or original research is getting very tiresome and has become simply talk page misbehaviour. The sources do not report that the vast majority of Maria Butina's activities are relevant to the 2016 elections. I don't know why you've thought you had a strong argument in this for so long, but now is the time to withdraw from that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You and a couple of other contributors constantly tell that X or Y is not relevant to the timeline, without citing anything at all to support your statement. What is the basis for your judgment, other than your personal opinion? This is a very big and highly complex controversy that involves a lot of people and events. This is not something obvious or self-evident, like black versus white. I am not an expert and do not know what was relevant/related and what was not. I leave this judgement to sources, precisely as WP:RS and WP:NPOV requires.My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot access the WaPo article. In what way does it say Butina's setting up a gun rights group influenced the 2016 election? TFD (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

without citing anything at all to support your statement How would that even be possible? When reliable sources report on the actions of Maria Butina, they don't provide a list of events that her actions are not in connection to. They only report on what they are in connection to. You're the one trying to claim that reliable sources say they are connected but it seems like all you have is the fact that Robert Mueller and others have investigated it. I don't think talk page participants are going to tolerate this attempt at categorising us as engaging in original research anymore. It's not up to us to show that they are not connected, it's up to you to show that they are connected. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• "without citing anything at all to support the statement". Yes, indeed. Consider this large insertion of suggestions by one of participants. I can see two problems with this. First, these suggestions to remove were not supported by analysis of any specific RS on the subject, whatsoever. Second, the contributor did not provide many items exactly as they appear on the page, but instead distorted the text of timelime items in such way so they would appear ridiculous. This is an obvious example of WP:OR. "it's up to you to show that they are connected". No, it is an RS (not me) has described them as connected to each other and to the subject of this page (see large direct quotation above). As a reader, I can only agree with RS: yes, they are obviously connected, logically and through the actions by the same person. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

At this point you're just pretending that these reliable sources are saying that these actions are part of interference in the 2016 elections, when they simply are not. As for talk page discussions, there is far too much on the article for us to go over each of them individually. It's very blatant that you are demanding greater and greater requirements on those who seek to remove the irrelevant and unnecessary details from the article, as part of status quo stonewalling. There has been absolutely no consensus for much of the added material, as this content has been challenged repeatedly over the last months and years. The only reason much of this content is still on the article is the greater persistence in edit reverting by some editors and I ask Awilley to look into this if they can. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The source I cited tells "2016 elections" right in the title and numerous times in text. Did you read the source? I also quickly checked the talk page archive, and no, you are wrong: the added materials do reflect consensus. If you want to change it now, start an RfC. But an RfC about what? My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Not everything in an article that talks about a topic is relevant to that topic, or even should be included in an article about the topic. The talk page archives are filled with complaints over the content here, and they are left at "no consensus" but mysteriously the content remains, due to the greater persistence of a few editors. You obviously know I'm not just talking about content regarding Maria Butina. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, can you explain how Butina's setting up a gun rights group is interference in the U.S. election? It's pretty clear for example that posting a facebook ad of Hillary wearing horns and boxing against Jesus is an attempt to persuade religious people to vote against her. Or are you saying you don't know but think it should be in the article regardless? TFD (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Me and BR cited several sources above which discuss connections between Butina, Torshin and the 2016 elections. Last one is merely a timeline (just as this page), and it only considers events that involve Butina AND are related to 2016 elections (according to the source). It tells, for example, "it’s worth fleshing out the timeline presented in that case in order to show where Butina, Torshin and 2016 politics overlapped." and gives the list. Here is my point: if an RS included such and such events to a timeline of events related to the 2016 "interference", so can we. Yes, we can be more selective in including the events than sources, however lots of arguments above that the specific events simply "do not belong" because they are not related to the "interference" (according to participants) are incorrect and against the policy. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

2016 politics ≠ 2016 interference. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It must be obvious from the title of the article and from quotations above that the source is talking about the interference to the elections. Is not that obvious for you? Do not you understand what this source tells? People who previously included the content about Butina and Torshin to this page (it was not me!) apparently did understand what the sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The title of an article isn't enough to establish relevance. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

, MVBW, First, titles are not reliable sources. Second, the title as you correctly point out is "Timeline: The odd overlap of Maria Butina, the gun-rights movement and the 2016 election". Overlap means that somethings that are in one set are also in another, while somethings in one set are not in the other. Third, the article is about Butina's role. One would expect more detail on Butina than would appear in an article about the election overall. Fourth, the article is about the election, not necessarily election interference. For example, the fact that Butina was in America during the campaign is important to establishing whether she interfered but is not interference in itself. Fifth, you should be able to explain why something is relevant other than it appears in a source. That's the thing one needs to know to successfully answer essay questions on tests. TFD (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to get anywhere more with them but this summarises it perfectly. Are we all good to remove the content about Maria Butina? Consensus is clearly indicated that here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you guys lost the source-based discussion here. The cited sources clearly say what they say, and they were cited directly. Plain denial is not going to work (I hope). Not only the removal would be against consensus, but it would be against our core policies, such as WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Are we all good to remove the content about Maria Butina?" Absolutely not. She was very much involved in the Russian interference/influence campaign and got convicted for her role. The Butina content should stay. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not regarding 2016 though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

She plead guilty to "one count of conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign official. She was not specifically convicted in relation to the U.S. election but in attempting to further the interests of Russia both before and after the election, per CNN.[4] There are two instances where conceivably she attempted to interfere with the election: when she asked Trump a question about Russia sanctions and when she tried to arrange a meeting between Trump and Torshin. But other than that, it should all go. TFD (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping the attempted meeting between Trump and Alexander Torshin. Not sure if asking Trump a question at a press conference counts as interference but I'll leave that to discussion. Either way this proves that at least 57 of the 59 mentions of Maria Butina are irrelevant to the scope of this article is supposed to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick inspection shows that inclusion of all episodes with Butina currently on the page is justified by cited sources (not only by sources above, but by a number of others). If you think that inclusion of any specific event is not justified by sources, please tell what it is, and let's check what the sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You said that already - repeatedly. Your only reason for inclusion is that it appears in an article about Butina. But this article is not about her and unless you have some source that explains the relevance, there is consensus to remove it. I don't really know how asking a question or trying to arrange a meeting are interference in the election. They seem more designed to influence U.S. policy. But you can thank me for supporting their inclusion. TFD (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Three sources that support inclusion were cited above. You can't deny what they say. "Maria Butina, a Russian national who sought to infiltrate both the Trump campaign and the NRA", "Torshin is one of more than 20 Russians sanctioned by the American government in response to Russian interference in 2016", and so on. A lot more sources that support inclusion are cited on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note the word "both." She was also accused of infiltrating the NRA and attempting to influence U.S. foreign policy. TFD (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I would advise you do more than a "quick inspection" then. All the Butina events are not shown to be justified by sources to be included in this article, except for possibly seeking to arrange a meeting between Trump and Torshin, and asking a question at a press conference. Both of those are very tenuous but at least have to do with the 2016 election. Given a lack of sources showing how these activities going as far back as 2011 aren't directly related to the 2016 election, they will be removed per the consensus to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• So far, you did not provide here a single event related to Butina whose inclusion would not be supported by sources, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

That's my point, there aren't any sources linking the vast majority of what we detail of Butina with the 2016 election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of every single item about Butina seems to be well sourced on the page right now. I checked a few additional sources (see above) and they seem to support the inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The items are verifiably true, it's just that they don't belong on this article. If you want to move them entirely to another article, that's a reasonable idea. You've certainly shown sources that indicate these events happened, but they don't show anything about being related to this article's scope, except possibly for two entries (attempting to set a meeting between Trump and Torshin, and asking a question at a press conference) if we were to be very generous. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am saying that inclusion is supported by sources (read my comments please, they are short). The Very Strange Case of Two Russian Gun Lovers, the NRA, and Donald Trump is another source currently cited on the page, and it also provides timeline of involvement of Butina to the "interference" and of course to other events. Did you read it? My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We've been over this many times. No, the sources do not support inclusion. Yes, we have read them. Something being in the same article as something about the 2016 election isn't supporting inclusion. Neither is everything about a certain person in an article, simply on the basis of the title alluding to the 2016 election, supporting inclusion. Are we going to see anything new from you or is that all? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, the article says that the FBI was investigating an allegation that Torshin had funneled Kremlin money through the NRA into the Trump campaign. That would be interference but I suppose like most of the nonsense it turned out to be unfounded. TFD (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Once again, "you suppose". And my point is entirely different. This source, just like another one (see above) provides a timeline of events related to the "interference". Hence the inclusion of these specific events (related to Butina and Torshin) is indeed supported by sources. My very best wishes (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you have provided multiple links to WP:OR, I think it is fair that I acknowledge it and mention that I have read the policy already. It says, "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

I am not recommending adding anything but in fact recommending irrelevant information. You are the one who is originally researching, by insisting on the inclusion of material based on reasoning that reminds me of Glenn Beck at his chalkboard. x is connected to y, which is connected to z, therefore George Soros is behind astroturf.

TFD (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• No, we are just saying on the page what reliable sources say on this subject (see quotations above and other RS). Nothing more. That's the policy. The cited sources are clearly on the subject of the "interference", and whatever assertions they make, those are direct assertions made by the cited sources, such as including certain episodes to timelines about the "interference". And BTW, this content was not included by me. This is a long-standing content which reflects consensus. I only checked a few extra sources to make sure that the content was included correctly. Yes, it was. Now, if you want to change consensus, please start an RfC asking, for example, "Should such and such events related to Butina be excluded from the timeline?" That was recommended on the DRNB. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been any consensus to include information about Maria Butina. If you can find such talk page discussion, please show us. The talk page archives are littered with complaints over the excesses of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Kostin

I reverted recent additions about claims by Kostin [5]. We can't provide long discussions with rebuttals here. Place this to other pages, probably to the page about Kostin or the bank. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Note recent edits to "Andrey Kostin" wp article. X1\ (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts and suggestions:

(1) This is named inaccurately. (2) Casts aspersions. It isn't an intelligence report; this is Wikipedia. Does this belong here? (3) Assuming it does, it doesn't belong under this heading. It should be split up. I can understand wanting to make a list of, say, Trump's and other peoples' dealings with foreign countries, but this isn't fair. (4) Bias is obvious. (5) Many things in this have zero connection to the election at all. (6) You should rename it to 'Alleged interference in 2016 United States elections' (no country, add alleged). (7) This page has no place on this site.

PS: Happy Birthday Ed Snowden!!!

(Why bother?), 21 June 2019, 01:38 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.132.190.146 (talk)

The interference in the election by the Russian government is clear. The problem with the article is that it goes much too far, such as suggesting why there would be interference, all under the guise of the media saying so. As a first step we can quite obviously move Trump's dealings in Russia away from this article and into the article about Trump's dealings in Russia, for example. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

Why was this deleted? If it weren't for the enforced BRD, I'd have restored it with the edit summary "unexplained deletion". Explain every edit with an edit summary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. I removed it because it is an unnecessary amount of detail. It's a problem that is prevalent throughout the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

According to your new version, that was done by a single FBI agent. Was it? Not according to the previous version, and it seems to be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It does not take much detail to clear that up. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

After looking more carefully, I tend to agree with this removal because very same info appears below in the list. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Soviet bloc; Poland specifically?

For the September 8, 2016 item:

Sessions meets with Kislyak a third time in his Senate office with two members of his Senate staff, Sandra Luff and Pete Landrum. They discuss Russian military actions and the presence of NATO forces in former Soviet bloc countries bordering Russia. Kislyak invites Sessions to have further discussions with him over a meal at his residence. In 2018, Luff and Landum tell Mueller's team that they don't recall Sessions dining with Kislyak before the election.

Since Soviet-bloc redirects to Eastern Bloc (assume intended) thus excluding post-Soviet states (which includes the Baltic states) the only NATO country bordering the Russian Federation is Poland. Do we want to point to Poland specifically to make it easier for the wp:Reader? X1\ (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

X1\ (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The Eastern Bloc included the U.S.S.R. All the successor states of the U.S.S.R. could have been referred to as countries even before they seceded. TFD (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not true, Norway is a NATO member that borders Russia. The Eastern bloc included the Soviet Union, which included the Baltic states. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I was confusing Warsaw Pact with "Eastern Bloc" (the Cold War corollary to the Western Bloc). X1\ (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I put "Soviet-bloc" because that is the exact term used in the Mueller report, and, based upon the context, is probably a phrase used by one of the witnesses interviewed by Mueller's team. I considered using a different term for the benefit of younger readers, but there isn't enough info in the source to narrow down exactly which modern countries are being referred to. Websurfer2 (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Websurfer2: No, don't change anything. My apologies, for some reason it stuck in my mind that the USSR wouldn't be included as a member in those old groups, it being the hegemon. Keep it as used. My mistake. X1\ (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Restoring excessive citations

I couldn't believe it, but I really shouldn't be surprised at this point. I made two edits towards the end of the article removing some of the excessive citations of this article, and X1/ decided to characterise as they have characterised almost every decrease in article size previously, as "mass deletion" and therefore something that can't be done either boldly or in good faith. I've also had accusations of vandalism over these edits, or the more strange "appearance of vandalism" accusations, which is simply not appropriate for this discourse. I only removed citations where there was unnecessarily more than one citation used to support something, which is particularly an issue on an article like this with about 650 citations. I checked the citations to decide which would be the most appropriate for each passage. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That was definitely a "mass deletion", and, as I wrote on your talk page, you need to get a solid consensus BEFORE you delete things. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A large removal if you're so inclined, but not a mass deletion particularly. As for this "consensus before editing" nonsense, Wikipedia editors should know better. Being WP:BOLD is at the core of our values. Now it's up to editors to argue why they disagree. I will note once more that I only removed redundant citations, so there was nothing without a reference that already had a reference previously. I checked the references to determine which was the most appropriate to remain in the article, preferring those that had a focus on the facts of the entry, secondary sources, English language sources, and sources considered more reliable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

X1\ is correct. I have replied on your talk page about how it is only your application of BOLD that is seen as disruptive. It's not a problem for other editors. the way other editors do it, only the way you do it. That's why so many editors keep complaining to you, but you just blow them off. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no other application of WP:BOLD other than to make bold edits that the editor believes are constructive. Your personal opinions of me are really irrelevant. I could just as well go into the issues with your patterns of editing but I don't see that as relevant to improving this article. I have outlined why I made the edits and that is what this section is about, not personalities. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I randomly checked one of your removals [6]. For example, you left this ref and removed that one. They are not telling the same at all, but supplement each other. Whoever included these refs knew what he/she was doing. Randomly removing refs just because a statement was supported by two refs rather than one is an absolutely wrong approach. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The one I removed did not supplement referencing of the statement. I'm not saying that what I've done should be the final version, of course we can make changes to references beyond that, but clearly the vast majority of what I've done to cut down excessive citations has been most sensible and beneficial. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not at all clear. We trust those who created that material and added the sources more than we trust you, especially with your track record. Just follow WP:PRESERVE by keeping content as much as possible, and then by fixing actual errors and improving, not deleting, content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So you have no reason except for personal reasons against me. Anything you're saying about content is simply not relevant here since I haven't removed any content, I have only removed references. If there is anybody here we shouldn't trust, it would be the editors who have resulted in this article becoming as messy as it is, but I don't seek to exclude editors from discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The specific ref I mentioned above should stay for the reason explained. If you want to remove another specific reference you should explain why in the edit summary. One of us will check if it was valid reason and possibly agree with you. If not, this should be discussed. No mass unjustified removals please. My very best wishes (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There's far too many references to remove that would fit in an edit summary, so these will have to be done in significant amounts each time. There are the same few reasons though, so I can describe them generally both here and in an edit summary. It's fine if you have one or two that you don't think should be deleted, that can go back in for now, otherwise it would just be disruptive and prevent us from getting anywhere in removing the large amount of unnecessary citations. This is one of the reasons why the article is in the current unfortunate state that it's in. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

What unfortunate state? This list is fine. Where did you get an idea that having two supporting in-line references for a statement is bad? This is actually a good thing. Anyone who would like to check or look deeper, can more easily look at them both. More important, many statements here can be seen as extraordinary claims, which requires multiple supporting RS per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is far too large in size. There are several reasons for this, and several ways this manifests, including the excessive citations. As for content, there is certainly far too much displayed here, but that doesn't mean they can't be displayed anywhere else on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of sources for readers to navigate; we cite as much as necessary and avoid using too many. It's normal for there to be only one reference for an entire paragraph, not for every statement to have more than one reference. None of the statements themselves are particularly extraordinary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No, the claims about connections between top US politicians and Russian agents are certainly extraordinary. Also, one needs multiple sourcing to reliably establish that some of the events belong to the list. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The entire article is about those connections though, which has hundreds of citations. It's not one statement that says that. This is nothing to do with events having multiple references, this is about statements. Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying, I never said the article should only have one reference. The individual statements are obviously not extraordinary like the entirety of the subject is. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is perfectly fine as is. Two, three, and even four references is perfectly fine. There is no reasons to delete them. If there are more, they can be grouped so we don't lose them, but that way they look better. Most of your deletions were where there were only two references. There is no excuse for doing that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for them to be there when we have other references that explain the same things better. If it was only two references per paragraph then you might have a point but this was multiple references per statement. This doesn't affect content but it does make the article needlessly large, which is unequivocally a bad thing. If there are extraordinary instances where we should have multiple references then we can discuss that, but certainly most of them are unnecessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. References are more important than the content because the content is based on those references, and we should place the needed references beside the relevant words, ideas, facts, phrases, etc. That means a sentence may need several refs, and a paragraph even more. This is common practice here because that's what we are supposed to do. The article isn't too large, especially because it's a list article and not a prose article, and making it smaller should be done by doing things like splitting it, not deleting content or sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The problems with a large article do not magically go away when the word "list" is used to describe it. Regardless of whether references or content is more important, it is not desirable to have as many references as the article has. The excessive citations are simply not needed. There are many things that can be done, but what do you think could be split from the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

See the policy - Contentious material about living persons. One must be very careful. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything that had a reference still had a reference after my edits. I only removed the excessive ones, and as I've said before, I was very careful in determining which should remain. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer and X1 know this subject better than me. If they agree with something, I am not going to object. My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Strange for them being your examples but I don't intend on excluding anybody from discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

We think the article is fine. Two refs is not excessive, not for a sentence, or even a word when necessary. Heck, if it's a BLP matter, two isn't even enough.

123IP is the ONLY editor I've ever encountered with such a view since I started editing here in 2003. It's a very odd idea that is totally at odds with current practices, policies, and guidelines. We keep telling 123IP that their view is not acceptable, but they won't listen. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You can encounter WP:OVERCITE then. The personal hostility I've experienced from yourself and two other editors over the course of weeks has resulted in you not being taken authoritatively or objectively when judging me or my edits, so I don't know why you would be so aghast if I "won't listen" to you. It's not as if you've been listening to me, but this is not something that I've experienced before on Wikipedia.

Of course there can be statements where we need more than one reference but that's obviously not going to be very common, especially since this is a list article rather than a prose article. Where we don't need multiple references we shouldn't be having them just for the sake of it. Multiple references should actually be necessary to support facts, not just to create a repository of links.

I asked you how you think the article could be split. I invite you again to answer that question. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned these two contributors because they object to your edits and because I think they are knowledgeable contributors. I have only one interest here: to improve the content, which includes not removing something that belongs to the page. As I said, if you tell here "source X should be excluded because it duplicates source Y", I am ready to check it and agree with you if you are right. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The references I removed were not necessary to support the statements when the remaining references were there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you can not remove a lot of content or refs over the objections of others and without any justification (what you said above is not a valid justification for removing any specific references). It's time to follow WP:DEADHORSE. Regards, My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I've given justification multiple times in this very talk page section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have, but no one's buying it. It's time to drop the stick. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I support User:Onetwothreeip in general, particularly as he says he's checked the sources. If the remaining sources support the statement, we don't need the ones he removed. We need only one source, although two would be acceptable. Three or more? Nope. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

One needs as many sources as needed to support a statement. That can be three or more. Having more sources is also generally beneficial for a reader who would like to study the subject in depth, unless these sources duplicate each other (that did not happen in a couple of removals by 123IP I checked). My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

They simply weren't needed though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is easy to check when you remove refs only in a couple of places. But when you do mass removals, I can only check one or two examples at a time. I did just that and found that they were not at all "duplicates", but it would be helpful to have them both (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you quoting the word "duplicates"? The sentences were fully supported by the reference(s) that I remained on the article. We're not here to provide a repository or directory of links. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible cutting

A

To make the article shorter, the following changes might be appropriate: (1) The directory of individuals can be moved to an alternate page and changed in format so that names that do not appear in the article are omitted. (2) Links to Russian Wikipedia pages should be deleted. (3) Citations sometimes appear as :67 for example, with the number 67 not having a link. The citation should be fixed or removed. (4) Irrelevant information should be deleted. One example is the UK nominee to be ambassador. (5) The fact that information was confirmed later and how can be omitted or shortened, with the fact of the revelation preserved elsewhere. Theoallen1 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2019

1. I agree we could transclude "Relevant individuals and organizations" on every page, as previously mentioned.

See Draft:Relevant individuals and organizations to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. X1\ (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

2. Why removed ru:Crocus Group, ru:Право на оружие (движение), ru:Павловский, Вячеслав Альфредович, ru:Военный институт Министерства обороны СССР, &/or ru:Генбанк? Useful, and small.

3. See Template:Rp

4. provide link please

5. Do you have some specific suggestions?

X1\ (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Changed my numbering style for my responses to exactly match numbering style of Theoallen1's (first) 5 items. X1\ (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Theoallen1 has now made both sets of 5 exactly the same, making the situation even more confusing, so I changed my numbers back to my original system. I'll call Theoallen1's first set of 5 group "A" (above) and the second set group "B" (below). X1\ (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: respond to my responses from your first 5 items before just adding more. X1\ (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@X1: The answer is as follows to these items: (1) See WP:DIARY (2) The links do not have to be removed. However, the red links are broken. (3) The citation problem appears to be fine. (4-5) No specific change. 14:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

(A1) If you are referring to "A diary" of WP:DIARY, I don't see how this applies to the List of "Relevant individuals and organizations". See multiple previous discussions. I am not disagreeing that it may be appropriate to remove some names from the List. It would be best to create a transcluded page per my Draft to give us working room while other issues are addressed.

(A2) The links aren't broken, as they have bluelinks to non-English language articles; and the bluelinks can be used to facilitate the creation of English articles, thus eliminating the redlinks. See Help:Interlanguage links.

(A3) Resolved. (A4) No link provided, but appears resolved. (A5) No specific suggestions provided, but appears resolved. X1\ (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

B

Much should still be done

(1) On the transition move, the Flynn article on SCL should be pre election, since it was terminated shortly after the election. Everything else is post election.

(2) On names, some mentioned but once on this article are Amash, Arif, Artemenko, Barr, Burr, Calk, Coats, Craig, Donaldson, Dubelie, Ellis, Howell, Jackson, Mehta, Nadler, Nakasome, Neal, Nielsen, Ramos, Ross, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Schiller, Sekulow, Weisselberg, Whitaker, Wray, and Zwaan.

(3) Some people are mentioned insignificantly. For example, Bolton is mentioned on December 10, 2013 campaigning for gun rights in Russia. The reference to him in the directory and the information can be deleted.

(4) There are 14 dead links,

(5) Also, in 2014, Clovis recommends Page to the campaign lacks a date.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The list of individuals is a strange issue. It seems to be a mistake to use the same list for multiple articles. A while ago I went through the entire list and removed names that only appeared once or did not appear in the article at all. If editors of other articles want to use the current list on those articles, I am certainly willing to keep a current copy on a user page.

Overall there is simply far too much here, and far too much detail as well. There is simply too much for one person to take each individual entry to the talk page. I hope that we can expedite this process quicker, and not see a return to the status quo stonewalling. I support editors removing detail from the article where they see fit to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the following policies should be considered: WP:SIZERULE, WP:EXCESSDETAIL, and WP:TOPIC. This is the longest article, and needs to be trimmed of needless details.Theoallen1 (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE is just a "rule of thumb" from a guideline, not a policy. As far as the list remains organized and readable, this is fine. No, it does not provide a lot of excessive detail, and it stays on the topic as far as the relevance of individual items to the subject is supported by references. My very best wishes (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no case for special pleading for this article from these guidelines. Splitting has not yet been discussed either, though it should be. The idea that this article stays on topic is a complete nonsense, especially when editors have admitted to adding content here simply because the content exists in a reliable source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Theoallen1: I changed your 4.1 to (5) as I assume you intended, and adjusted the indents accordingly. Hopefully this is correct. X1\ (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(B1) provide link. (B2) See my A1 response above. (B3) same as B2. (B4) provide links or just correct. (B5) If you find a more exact date, then add it. X1\ (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposals for consolidations

Even though this is the longest article, every deletion is questioned. The following changes should be made:

1. In 1991, the parenthesis become (commonly known as Russia).
2. The 2006 item of diner is removed.
3. The April 29-May 1 and May 7, 2011 items are consolidated.
4. In the first 2013 Article, the August is specifically noted is removed.
5. The 2014 April 24 and April 25-27 items are consolidated.
6. the June 10 and June 16, 2014 items are consolidated.
7. On September 22, 2015, the Giorgi Rtskhiladze link is removed.
8. The October 9, 12, and 13, 2015 items are consolidated.
9. The February 2, 2017 item in sentence 1 is removed.
10. The item Clovis recommends Carter Page to the campaign, without a date, is removed.
11. The March 12 2016 date has a comma added “In 2017, his…”
12. The March 15, 2016 item that Trump says he has become is deleted.
13. The item between April and November 2016 is deleted
14. The item Starting 4 May is rewritten as starting May 4 and the links for Listrak and Cendyn are deleted.
15. The May 25 protest of the Lawrence High graduation is reworded.
16. The June 4/5 2016 items are consolidated.
17. The Nigel Farage encounters Stone item, without a date, is deleted.
18. The items for July 25-28 are indented.
19. The July 29 Russian commander name sentence is deleted.
20. August 31 or September 1 is bolded.
21. The parenthesis on September 27 are deleted.
22. The October 11 2016 Center of Political has the link deleted
23. On October 30, the second article has the first link deleted.
24. The November 8 items are moved to the start of post election transition
25. The last item on January 19 stating in December 2018 is deleted.

Theoallen1 (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you can try to gradually fix these things and see if anyone will object. Just do not do them all in a single edit. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I will call this group C.

C1. Seems uncontroversial, so changed (commonly simplified to "Russia") to (commonly known as Russia). See previous discussions if needed.

C2. Go back to #2006 August item question for discussion.

C3. No value added.

C4. No. See previous discussions and ESs.

C5. No value added.

C6. Need to find out more, such as who placed there. WikiBlame and "Find addition/removal" (Blame) don't appear to be currently working properly.

C7. I removed redlink for Giorgi Rtskhiladze, Georgian-American businessman as I didn't find him in the Georgian Wikipedia or the Russian.

C8. Since there is a date between them, not at this time.

C9. What? See Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017). (I'm saving here, and will restart my responses later. X1\ (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC))

C10. See B5.

C11. Added uncontroversial comma.

C12. I assume the editor's addition of Trump self-focus/promotion (narcissism) with saying he's "the biggest political story anywhere in the world" while he closes-in on the GOP's nomination (having won five primaries; per source in same paragraph) was in contrast to focus on Russian interference; i.e. instead of talk of the patriotism of protecting the American democratic process. That would be just as clear, and better detail by addition of his progress towards GOP nomination. I have suggested the change here. The next sentence about Unit 26165 "Fancy Bear, begins probing the DNC computer network" is the same source paragraph.

C13. What? Provide link.

C14. Changed uncontroversial date format. Keep Listrak / Cendyn (I had hoped to create wp articles by now, or by someone; not yet) links as the Dexter Filkins reference is significant and I suggest you read it. Presumably more references will be added related to these as there are more Congressional (and otherwise) investigations into this are made public. Follow the money, as they say. Also see related items at Trump Tower wiretapping allegations and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017).

C15. Since source says paid for by Russian trolls (I didn't see "IRA" (Internet Research Agency) specifically in the LJWorld ref), I changed it.

C16. No value added, to just combine and add words "the next day" (to keep date info) to retain content. The bytes used in the page space would be trivial.

C17. Alex Jones, Nigel Farage & Roger Stone communications with Paul Manafort (Trump) would be significant to the Reader.

C18. No to indent, as all the items between 25-28 are not directly 2016 Democratic National Convention subsets.

C19. No, as names of involved, Viktor A. Boyarkin, are significant. May un-redlink, but need to search other languages for item.

C20. No, as breaks style of page.

C21. No value added.

C22. Removed redlink from IP-added Center of Political and Foreign Affairs (a Fabien Baussart was created), as uncontroversial.

C23. See C7.

C24. No, then items would be out-of-order. Others could have occurred BEFORE November 8, then items would be out-of-order. We can place items in exact days if we get RSs.

C25. No. Below was discussed previously. It is reported to have occurered occurred during the campaign and transition period (ending January 20, 2017). If the "transition" is moved into the "2017" article, this item needs to be on both pages (as other items would be that have vague dates and straddle the divide), in the same manner the vague "January" in pre-20th 2017 article is currently is done by the current consensus logic.

In December 2018, it is reported at least 16 Trump associates interacted with Russian nationals during the campaign and transition period, including Papadopoulos, Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Page, Sessions, Gordon, Caputo, Sater, Cohen, Prince, Stone, Ivanka Trump, Trump Jr., Kushner, and Kushner aide Avi Berkowitz.

X1\ (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Addendum to "Giorgi Rtskhiladze" C7 & C23: He did have a wp article when the DRN happened (note the DRN was deleted by a volunteer with an ES of "courtesy blanking", you can see the un-hidden items more easily here.) X1\ (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

On Deletionpedia one can find the previous Rtskhiladze article here. X1\ (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

See question for C25, re-asked at #Specific date for December 2018 revelation. X1\ (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

So, you think you fixed everything already? If so, that's fine. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

On removing content I totally agree. All else is minor formatting that I haven't looked into. It's important to note that there are no previous discussions that came to the conclusion to keep this content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing most content. The advantage of these detailed timeline pages is that they are a treasure trove for historians and students showing everything that was happening around any given date. While grouping items into narrative threads makes it easier for readers to follow individual narratives, it makes it difficult for readers to see the bigger picture, like multiple Russians reaching out to multiple Trump campaign individuals within a few days. For example, separate narrative threads for Papadopoulos, Page, Butina, and everyone else would obscure the breadth of the Russian push in May 2016 to try to convince Trump and people in his personal orbit to travel to Russia for private meetings with Russian government officials. A better idea would be to have a separate "consolidated" or "highlights" page with the major items and leave these pages intact with all of the gory details that give a more complete picture. Trying to throw out items just to fit everything within an arbitrary 650 KB size limit makes no sense unless your goal is to hide information that doesn't fit your worldview. Websurfer2 (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing content for removing's sake is vandalism, I agree with Websurfer2. X1\ (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with the two preceding editors. soibangla (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Removal of recent additions by Onetwothreeip

[7]. This is good and sourced info on the subject, some of that recently published. Why remove? My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mvbw, and I expect more details will be placed here and related Timelines related to WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange's activities. X1\ (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It's just spurious and minor details that are getting far too outside the story. These edits include Julian Assange asking for a stronger internet connection! It's no longer a timeline of Russian interference, it's become a timeline of anything that intersects with the timeline of the Russian interference. The extent of the Russian government involving themselves with Wikileaks is warranted to be included here when it comprises key events, not simply day-to-day elements, which describes all of the information placed there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh no. Here is the inserted reference in question, and it is very clearly on the subject of the page and important. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in that reference is relevant here. Far too much detail on the processes within Wikileaks, when all that is necessary to include here is its intersection with the Russian government. Continuing to add further details such as these is extraordinarily in bad faith when the size and scope of the article is still highly contentious and discussions are ongoing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not think so (this ref provides timeline of events and they seem to be important), you removed a lot of other well sourced things like "Ecuador's Ministry of Foreign Affairs releases a public statement announcing that it "exercised its right" to "temporarily restrict access to some of (WikiLeaks') private communications network within its Embassy in the United Kingdom," and that the government of Ecuador "does not interfere in external electoral processes, nor does it favor any particular candidate." Why? My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikileaks is only relevant insofar as the Russian government used it to have information published. The political struggle between Ecuador and Assange is certainly not relevant. This is an article about Russian interference, not about hypothetical Ecuadorian interference. The fact that these things are sourced are totally irrelevant and it's certainly bad faith to state that I have removed well-sourced content, since that is not the issue at all. It's also bad faith to characterise this discussion as removal by me, as these are recent additions and we should discuss them in that context. Just because a news article uses a timeline does not mean we should be importing that timeline here. Our readers are not helped by the inclusion on information which is only background and not actually summarising the events. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No one tells that "political struggle between Ecuador and Assange" is relevant. There was no any struggle between them. Where did you get such idea?. Did not you read the source mentioned above? It's title: "Security reports reveal how Assange turned an embassy into a command post for election meddling" ("Russia comes knocking", etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I read the entire source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If so, you can not ignore what the source actually tells. My very best wishes (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Most of which is not due on this article. Maybe on some other article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)