Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Personal attacks not subsiding

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

---

User:Asilah1981 with consistent erratic, irregular behaviour on summary lines and personal attacks, especially on sensitive Spanish articles related to national matters, like Basque Country related, or Gibraltar, and Spanish history, where he adds emotional, inflammatory comments in accusatory ways. After being blocked two weeks ago [1] in Gibraltar for personal attacks, he came back to a sensitive article to continue with his pursuit inviting another Spanish regular editor with like views and a very short record in the EN WP to come to the article [2]. After insisting in adding comments skipping community input,[3] and having his own way again with an irregular false summary line [4][5], [6] (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). He is sometimes accompanied by ghostly editors. [7]

The last straw, he comes back to his old habits, with a straight libel and misrepresention of mine [8]. This comes from a long history previously, of intimidation by using very sensitive vocabulary to do so (see below), citing victims of ETA of which I have said nothing (they have all my respect for their suffering) but arrogating for himself some kind of representation, sometimes using the Spanish language. The editor seemed mildly to mend his way after he was warned in an ANI for his confrontational way months ago, but is not subsiding, set in his ways, see history here with a variety attacks and libels to discourage me from editing [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. After two years of account, a clear case of recurrent and continuous litigating ways, and confrontational, toxic editing. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have a few comments here.

First, I am involved in the Gibraltar dispute, but not in the Basque or Catalan ones. I am not a disinterested party.

I note that multiple editors, including both Asilah and Iñaki, have broken 3RR at Basque conflict over the past few days. I note that this is a clear WP:CANVASS violation, that the canvassing should be taken into account when determining consensus on that page.

Asilah was blocked on 9 December for one week following this discussion, in particular the issue was his repeated accusations of racism. He has since removed all mention of his block from his talk page (which he is, of course, allowed to do), but it may be instructive to look at it here. He is now accusing people of being terrorist apologists. I suggest that this is repeating the behaviour that saw him blocked two weeks ago and that escalating blocks are now appropriate.

Second, I have had my suspicions of sockpuppetry from this editor, but nothing concrete enough to bring it to WP:SPI. But this from this editor is frankly taking the piss. Suggest we should also be dealing with both per WP:QUACK. Kahastok talk 21:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL Addressing you specifically: you accuse me of Personal Attacks. Look, when you are deleting sources from an article written by Basque intellectuals who are outspoken against ETA violence as "dubious" and only accepting sources from ETA´s ecosystem, then yes, you are editing in a way which is pushing the pro-ETA narrative and POV on the article. This is not a personal attack, it is an opinion regarding the nature of your edits which I am free to express. It is indeed an emotional topic, particularly to those of us who have lost loved ones to terrorism. But I have (recently at least) showed restraint and have focused on Wikipedia policy. We both violated the 3RR rule, but there has been no recent Personal Attack against your persona. I did go over the top last march, I concede. Nothing over the past couple of days merits me being discussing this on ANI.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Sockpuppetry, this is the third time I am accused of Sockpuppetry by this editor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carlstak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pablo.alonso Perhaps my "sockpuppets" User:Carlstak, User:Pablo.alonso, User:Sidihmed, User:Johnbod and User:asqueladd have something to say?Asilah1981 (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL Also one last thing. You are Spanish, so I have addressed you a couple of times in Spanish. I speak it to a near-native level but I am not a Spanish citizen. So it would be wrong to say "I invited another Spanish editor to do so and so". Spanish editors involved in this dispute are just you and User:asqueladd . I happen to be Moroccan in heritage as you should have worked out from my user name and my earliest edits on Wikipedia. My ethno-religious background may also explain my sensitivity to perceived apology of terrorist groups (in general).Asilah1981 (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

As I have been summoned... I have some things to put in here:

1. With due respect, I am not exactly a user with a "very short" record in EN WP.
2. Neither Iñaki LL nor Kahastok know "my views" as I haven't ever disclosed my views here.
3. Have I been formally accused of being a sockpuppet?

--Asqueladd (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to make a few points, maybe this isn't the case in Spanish (and some of the diffs are, so I can't really comment on those), but in English, Libel is a legal term, and accusing someone of making libelous accusations may very well be construed as a legal threat. That's likely not the intention, but it's a good idea to avoid it. The same goes for accusing someone of defamation, which is also a term of legal consequence in English.

When it comes to calling something terrorism there is actually official guidance on that, and a redirect from WP:TERRORIST to guide you there. Furthermore, accusing someone of sock puppetry, especially repeatedly and without evidence, may be construed as a personal attack in its own right.

So given that no one involved appears to be 100% on their best behavior, has anyone actually tried any of the steps in the dispute resolution process? TimothyJosephWood 23:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Asilah1981, yes, accusing someone of pushing an agenda is absolutely a personal attack, and a consummate failure to assume good faith. TimothyJosephWood 23:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Re User:Asilah1981. This is just adding to your personal attacks to the conscience of others. For a start, I should ask you not call me Spanish, since I am not, except for administrative purposes. You had that horrible experience no one deserves and others have been tortured by the state's forces, etc. Now that does not give you more reason, if you are unable to edit in the WP because you cannot refrain, have your own blog. I make also a very big effort to edit in these circumstances.

I came here for suffering frequent personal attacks from the editor in question, but I could have posted equally for Sockpuppeting or Disruptive editing to be honest. The editor in question every time I bring up his irregular editing cites those two cases, which indeed are frustrating. The first one was a technicality, since I was not familiar with the resource, posted also another report failed for another technicality (oldest account...), and the third, User:Pablo.alonso, a sleeper/dormant account, I used the Checkuser and told that was not the case (IP alteration devices? There are), I do not think the administrator went through WP:DUCK. Evidence is extensive per WP:DUCK: topics, kind of language, timing, outlook/viewpoint, spellings, aggressive attitude but accommodating. I do not know who 83.213.205.100 is. However, this post seems to be only about only one kind of irregularity.

The 3RR, well I did indeed, Asilah1981 always pushes the limits and the patience, I just restored it to the regular version, since the editor did not respond to any input whatsoever, a complete WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:JDLI) with self-entitled edit summaries contradicted by the very content (check reference) [16], [17] and altering the sources [18], it was a circus... Iñaki LL (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothy Well, I did add evidence in the cases cited above. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I went through the diffs in your original post again, and I may have missed something since I'm holding a fussy baby, but, where...exactly...did anyone do anything in the dispute resolution process? I'm afraid, with my handicap, you may have to point to specifics. TimothyJosephWood 00:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, by dispute resolution process, I mean things like requesting a third opinion, input from related WikiProjects, opening requests for comments, and appeal to the dispute resolution noticeboard, not simply continuing a dispute on the article talk. TimothyJosephWood 00:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes it could have been so had it been a very specific case, and your links are appreciated, and that may have been the most correct way altogether, but it was a full range of straightforward violations of WP policies (concerted with the other User:Asqueladd) and, above all, just including another personal attack, which bears witness to a way of operating in the WP for a long time, disruptive and daunting, see diffs above. As it happens, on a previous section, just above the latest ones, we find also this malicious comment [19], also discouraging User:Adam Cli from creating and editing the article Talk:Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners with all kinds of personal and legal intimidations, see ANI [20] and here [21], basically do it my way of you will suffer the consequences ("piss him off"), some school memories?). Of course the newbie hardly comes back to the article now. The record is too long to overlook. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL Yeah, not just intimidation, "psychological torture". I must be an agent of the State abusing your human rights - online waterboarding. Btw, considering a majority of Basques feel Spanish (and many have been murdered for expressing their feelings)... considering the Basques are pretty much the founders of the modern Spanish state, the drivers of the Reconquista and subsequent Inquisition, as well as being by far the most important architects of the Spanish empire... considering they have been the most privileged region of Spain for centuries, since being granted, in the 16th century, "hidalguia universal" (race-based universal nobility) due to their supposedly pure untainted "Spanishness" to currently having a privileged tax status while simultaneously being the wealthiest part of Spain... Considering Spain´s financial sector is largely run from the Basque Country and the Basque region has received the most investment per capita under every pre-democratic regime in the last 300 years... then forgive me if I continue to consider you VERY MUCH Spanish. If you were from some other region of Spain (probably much further south), I might have been able to accommodate for your self-perception as an oppressed minority. I hope you do not consider that a Personal Attack.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is the category of the editor I am talking about, a POV rant with self-entitled monopoly on ideas in a imposition tone, a total inability to engage in constructive and collaborative editing. Have your own blog! I added above the evidence for consideration, self-explanatory, I expect protection to edit in a collaborative and safe environment, so nothing more to say. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

But you've hardly helped matters, have you? You got to 5RR in the 24 hours from 9am UTC on 22 December and only stopped when people stopped reverting you. That's a block straight off in principle per WP:3RR. You have gone beyond the bounds of WP:NPA and WP:AGF at times, have used anti-vandalism tools for content reverts and have altered Asilah's talk page posts without permission (in future, get permission or ask an uninvolved admin for help).

Don't get me wrong, I stand by what I said at the beginning. Asilah came back from his block and straight off repeated the behaviour that got him blocked. And that revert is still WP:QUACKing at me. But there are certainly areas where your behaviour could use some improvement. Both of you need to discuss this more calmly and dispassionately, and use WP:DR tools as needed if you can't reach consensus on your own. Kahastok talk 15:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the talk page talk of Iñaki and his use of the reversion tools were far from acceptable. Blatantly violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA (calling me "envoy" [22]and "campaigner"[23] and claiming I have intervened in a "concerted" way[24] and telling me to go back where I came from[25]), and dismissing an academic source as dubious[26] just because WP:IJDLI, acting like he owns POV. I concur, as both have kind of admitted[27][28], Iñaki and Asilah are under severe emotional stress regarding the topic of the Basque Conflict. Additionally to not having disclosed "my views" around here, I don't recall having disclosed my citizenship either. Merry Christmas to everyone.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Being under "severe emotional stress" in a topic area is not considered an excuse for poor behaviour on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not therapy; if you are not able to edit an article without severe emotional stress, may I suggest that it might be better not to edit it at all?

You single out Iñaki's use of "campaigner". Do you condemn Asilah when he makes exactly the same allegation against others? Kahastok talk 17:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I have singled nobody as "campaigner" regarding the Basque Country yet. Iñaki did[29] single me out as campaigner.Sorry, wrong reading.I would be moderately offended too if Asilah1981 self-righteously revert my edits (addition of content based in state of the art input in the basque conflict) per WP:BATTLEGROUND and as the act of a "campaigner" (taking into account its placement in the article may can indeed be discussed based on WP:LEAD in the talk page), yes, if that is what you ask.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Asilah has routinely been calling people not just campaigners and activists, but terrorist apologists and racists (the latter as per the last ANI), for quite a long time now. This, for example, goes far beyond a single use of the word "campaigner". This is a clear accusation that another editor is an ETA apologist. Do you condemn those personal attacks, as you condemn Iñaki's use of the word "campaigner"? I'm not defending Iñaki, but he is not the bigger problem here. Kahastok talk 18:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Asilah's contributions to that page have long been problematic. Accusing editors he disagrees with of being "being ETA sympathisers" for example or suggesting bad faith. It is a controversial topic and he needs to tone it down. Besides the canvass issue noted above, this diff looks very much like quacking. However, he hasn't been the only offender. Some of Iñaki LL's contributions to the talk page are unhelpful, for example accusing editors you disagree with of "verbal incontinence" and telling them to "go back to where they came from, the ES:WP" are also hardly likely to create an editing atmosphere which will enable us to overcome disagreements. I'm willing to work on that page to reach an acceptable version, but as I've said before there's too much commenting on other editors' supposed motives, which achieves nothing productive. After the holidays, we can get input from related Wikiprojects like Spain, Basque, Military History, Terrorism, Politics etc, but until then we need to stay focused on the content, not contributors. Valenciano (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Valenciano, you were yourself attacked by the editor in question Asilah1981. With re "verbal incontinence", it is an informal representation of breach of WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:CIVILITY, is that so bad really? Furthermore, "What the fuck" is even a censored word in English speaking media, nothing to comment about that? For the rest, your attitude and input is appreciated. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Valenciano Agreed.Asilah1981 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Re Asqueladd I should apologize for what my inexact comment on the history length of Asqueladd due to an oversight, he has done not many but significant edits in the EN WP, many of them related to national matters (Catalonia, Basque Country, etc.) [30]. I do not understand your answer to Kahastok, just be clear if you want to reply to the question. Secondly, you may have made a point, the use of campaigner is not right, but you just tell me what this is about [31] if not a call to continue with "the cause". The other comments are just noise, still you did not read. Again, per my own conscience I said that [32] and then I said this to make clear my position [33], still you keep coming back to me with the same thing as if you wanted to escalate. "State-of-the-art" is your own opinion. POV owning has nothing to do with what I did, just the opposite, I am defending from a ideological monopoly stated above by Asilah1981 of what an official truth must be, instead perhaps it is POV owning and apparent animosity citing in the lede of the article certain authors that need to be ostracized without going to details of such reasoning.

You kept reverting [34][35] even when User:Valenciano had just pointed the problems with Asilah1981's intervention [36][37], reminded and reverted straight by me later (diff cited above) per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE (yes I rushed to reverting finally in my own detriment but the sequence of irregular editing was all too evident) seeing that your intent was not to contribute smoothly and total disregard to the input added in the edit summaries before, just after Asilah1981 left the message in your page [38]. For the rest... more and more noise. Please do not compare me with Asilah1981's serious attitude problem (check each ones history), I will remind I am not telling anyone what a content must be of their contribution or conditioning their edition, otherwise calling me unacceptable abuse per WP:LABEL plus intimidating me with ultra-sensitive (legal) vocabulary that is having consequences on the Internet in Spain, affecting selectively only people who show opinions different to positions officially held by the Sp Govt.

Re @Kahastok:, thanks for your input, yes I did add this [[39], but it is on the article's talk page and removed as provisioned by WP rules WP:RPA, not on Asilah1981's talk page. "Campaigner" was probably not the good word to use, but this is just a detail in comparison to the rest of evidence affecting Asilah1981, starting from one of his main problems, misrepresenting the sources I added above on the NYT article (and insisting on it!, even in the face of direct text evidence on the contrary). It is not the first time I identify manipulation of the sources also in other topics (for which I can add evidence here if requested) and I consider it a clear confrontation with the WP community and altogether a very damaging factor to the WP since it erodes trust on WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

1) Really, Iñaki, what part of a) I have been openly asked about my opinion on a topic which I don't recall having edited before in my talk page. b) I openly give my take on the controversy in the talk page of the user who asked about it, including my disapproval of using letters-to-the-editor as source anywhere. c) I identify reliable sources on the matter. d) I edit the article adding content based on quality sources (I call monographical scientific works specifically on the topic published in 2016 having received good reviews in academic journals being indeed called by them an "advance in the understanding of the topic" "state of the art"), get reverted on the basis of being a "campaigner" and "battlegrounding" (we can work in the WP:LEAD part, and I was engaging in positive discussion with Valenciano before you stormed in there ranting about Asilah, about the "official version that should be quarantined" and whatnot, just before of telling me to go back where I come from, proving you just don't like what the source says and that both you and Asilah need to let it go). e) I manifest my surprise to the recent developments in the talk page of that user (not yours) with a "what the fuck has just happened". you think it is that reprobable put into context that you need to be fickle on my doings in the administrator's noticeboard?

2) Kept reverting? I only undid you one time. Not 2. Don't make false claims to blame shift your violation of 3RR in that page.

3) Although you have self-righteously conceded "you may use that source", you have still not provided any valid rationale about why it is a dubious source and should be put "in quarantine" [sic] other than your refractary dismissal of sources as "the official version" from the "Sp Gvt" per you "own experience" [sic] Surprising, given you have self-righteously (again) proclaimed no user is "deciding absolutely anything on POV".--Asqueladd (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Bla-bla-bla, I can hear your music, not your lyrics. The history is there for anyone to see, so in your favour or mine anyone can see it. Good night Iñaki LL (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Refractary indeed. Your honour, I rest my case.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Gorilla warfare

• We all better watch out. Asilah'sSomeone masquerading as Asila is trained in gorilla warfare [40]. I didn't know the Navy Seals take illiterates. EEng 06:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A momentary confusion ends amicably

E What the hell?? Someone has hacked my account. When was that edit made. Was it you??? Asilah1981 (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Oh I see, someone has used an anoynmous IP to draft a fabricated Asilah1981 edit and publish it somewhere (fortunately does not appear on my edit history so I guess my account has not be hacked.) That is really falling to new lows and definitely deserves a sanction. User:EEng#s Can you say it was not you who posted this fabricated edit? Logic points to you. This is very serious malicious activity. Asilah1981 (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC) While I apologize for allowing myself to be fooled by the IP's forgery of your signature (and you'll see I've corrected my post above) your random accusation is consistent with the concerns about you presented by the OP in this thread. EEng 07:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks EEng, I also apologize for assuming you were involved. Note, I had never run into you before so it felt very random in the context of this ANI. All the best.07:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk) I specialize in random stuff. EEng 07:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Ah yes, the Navy SWEALS, sea, Wikipedia, air and land forces. TimothyJosephWood 10:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I have only read the surface of this discussion but as I have been mentioned I have something to add. This post seems to follow on long and lasting disagreements between Asilah1981 (talk) and Iñaki LL (talk). Whatever is the quarrel I am not interested about, but in defense of Asilah1981 I have to point out that editor Iñaki LL (talk) has a long term history of launching sockpuppeting investigations based on fake facts and unsupported speculations on anyone who dares to disagree with him. Not only that, but in my case he even created an anonymous account to add modifications in a page that was subject of controversy and tried to make them pass as if they were made by me, trying to give further fuel to his quarreling. Pablo Alonso (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pablo.alonso: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but your personal edit warring and WP:GRUDGE against Iñaki LL are irrelevant to a thread about two constructive, experienced editors at loggerheads with each other. The are a lot of socks traipsing around Wikipedia, and it does not reflect badly on an editor for reporting them. A lot of us don't bother out of laziness and chose to waiting around until they get themselves blocked again for the same behaviour that got 'em blocked in the first place, or for them to give up. Every editor handles things their own way. I'm not particularly impressed with how you've handled yourself with the few edits you've made, but I'm not about to step into a thread about you and use it to create a demon of you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I stepped into this thread because I was explicitly mentioned, otherwise I won´t bother. But I see editor Iñaki LL (talk) repeating the same abusive and threatening behaviours that he is keen to use and that a lot of people seems to let him get away with. Editors are free to report socks, but a different story is to make up sockpuppetting cases against anyone that dares to disagree with you as a tool for harassment, and on top of it fabricate evidences. And my personal edit warring with Iñaki LL is relevant as long as it was him who dragged me into this mud with Asilah1981 in the first place. Pablo Alonso (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Yryna Harpy for your comment. A quick look to the history of Pablo.alonso is revealing enough, so I am not elaborating. Plus I do not think I did any of the coarse accusations this username states in his talk page. Sure he is entitled to blank pieces of his talk page, but alter the thread and misrepresent me? (Including violation of WP:AGF) Iñaki LL (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: You are equally entitled to blank pieces of your talk page, as you did deleting my entries. On the other hand, what is exactly the thread you say it was altered? I quick look to your history of quarreling with a long list of editors is revealing enough, so no need to elaborate. It is already the time for you to stop behaving like a bully and like the sheriff of Wikipedia, you don´t own this site. Pablo Alonso (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pablo.alonso: Actually, Pablo Alonso, it was not Iñaki LL who pinged you, it was Asilah1981 who did so... as well as many other 'editors' as he could muster (all of whom quack). Unfortunately, it's another display of WP:CANVASS by Asilah1981 as being part of his regular behavioural pattern. It's a shame because, in general, I've had a reasonable working relationship with him despite his gruffness. Personally, I'm not concerned as to whether you're sock, fish, or WP:MEAT: all of these accounts smack of being NQR, including yours. Strange that you appear to be lucid in English in edit summaries, yet you suddenly write as if you struggle with English. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Just to enlighten me, may you point out to me in which part am I struggling with English? Could you please explain why now my English is of relevance in this matter? Pablo Alonso (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: And by the way, it was indeed Iñaki LL who dragged me into this mud, read above: "and the third, User:Pablo.alonso, a sleeper/dormant account, I used the Checkuser and told that was not the case (IP alteration devices? There are), I do not think the administrator went through WP:DUCK. Evidence is extensive per WP:DUCK: topics, kind of language, timing, outlook/viewpoint, spellings, aggressive attitude but accommodating. Iñaki LL dixit. [[User:|Pablo Alonso]] (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pablo.alonso: Please read through this thread in sequence again. He did not ping you, he mentioned your account as opposed to WP:MENTION your account. It was Asilah1981 who pinged you in. And, yes, the internet is rife with software that bounces signals from server to server so that the originating IP can appear to be another IP, and emanating from anywhere in the world. That's why the DUCK test can't be proscribed to the signal emanating from the same region. Given the number of new editors suddenly acting as WP:SPAs working on the same range of articles, there is good reason to be A) suspicious; B) compare activity times and do a little linguistic profiling for patterns. This is not done out of prejudice, but as a matter of comparing the one individual against an editor suspected of being one and the same person. I won't profess to be someone willing to do this, nor to make decisions: that's where sysops who specialise in this area, and have access to the tools needed to make assessments come into the picture. I'm sorry if you are an innocent caught up in this, but I've had some comprehensive dealings with Asilah... and, in going through your editing history, you are highly reminiscent of him. Of course it could be a coincidence, but I've worked on enough highly controversial articles to have become very suspicious of 'coincidences' where there is edit warring and highly provocative commentary going on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience Iryna Harpy and bringing your knowledge on the field. Suddenly Asilah1981 is gone, but an apparent animosity and litigating remains, rings a bell? If the WP is not able to work out these situations, I am really concerned for the fate of WP and its productive editors. This time wasting is taking a toll on me and is a win in itself for toxic editors.

Pablo.alonso is patently attacking me on his talk page, User_talk:Pablo.alonso, that is clear, with violation of WP:AGF in the face of which I am defenseless since it is his talk page. For the time being neither Asilah1981 nor Pablo.alonso have brought up any evidence, except for fuss. Pablo.alonso's talk page and summary lines [41], [42], [43]. As for Asilah1981, I add further evidence of events 8 months ago including legal threat ("if you automatically revert all my edits", check also history as follows) [44]), [45], [46], [47].

I may not have used all the resources available in the WP, but evidence and the confrontational approach of the editor is there for anyone to see, not subsided. User:Xabier Armendaritz, User:Wee Curry Monster, User:Thomas.W, or User:JesseRafe may want to add something on dealing with Asilah1981. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I don´t care who pinged, I would have not got into this if Iñaki LL wouldn't have started again talking about me in terms of "WP:DUCK", "sleeper/dormant account", "aggressive attitude but accommodating" and so on, so it was him who brought me into this conversation. You like to talk a lot about ducks, but it seems obvious to me that regardless you saying that my editing history is reminiscent of Asilah1981 you have not spent a single second checking that out. Because if you would have done so, you would have realized that indeed Asilah and myself never commented in the same article. We don't even collaborate to wikipedia in the same themes. We are only related thanks to the unfounded and unwarranted accusation from Iñaki LL. As far as I am concerned, Asilah is Moroccan and I am Asturian, and indeed if you would have bothered to check my editing history you would have seen that I mostly comment on articles related to Asturies and Asturian culture, a topic where Iñaki LL, without sound knowledge and following an interested reinterpretation of history, started a warring edit deleting all my editing without explanations and/or justifications. The funny thing about all this is that you mention "edit warring and highly provocative commentary" when indeed Iñaki LL is the first one that falls into this type of behaviour, but about him you don't seem to say anything which for me could be also suspicious of WP:CANVASS, don't you think? On a different topic, you still haven´t clarified me what is wrong with my English. Pablo Alonso (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

??? Asilah edits in just about everything related to Spain and beyond, and especially in anything related to the period of Al-Andalus [48], [49],... Stop pinging me, it is annoying. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, your records shows you edited in Reconquista, a favourite topic of Asilah1981 though not editing straight there but in Umayyad conquest of Hispania, Morisco, etc.

@Iñaki LL: Stop lying and confusing editors. The only thing I deleted in my talk page from you was a quotation about edit warring you put there at the beginning, because it was nonsense, it didn't add any value, and it was ONLY a copy-paste of wikipedia rules: there wasn't any original comment made by you on that thing, so stop saying BS about misrepresenting. Indeed, in my talk page, every absurd accusation (and consequently rejected) that you have made is there for anyone to see, I didn't delete anything. On the contrary, you deleted the following entries made by me in yours: [50], in [51] and in [52]. So please, don't embarras yourself accusing me of misrepresenting you when I never deleted your comments and you did several times with mine. You "are not defenseless" in my talk page because your comments are in there for anyone to see, contrary to mine in yours. And you want evidence, there you are: in those links above to sections you deleted in your talk page there were references that proved your disrupting editing and your fabrication of evidences through anonymous accounts, check them out. Again, stop lying and confusing people. Pablo Alonso (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Confrontational... Your talk page is a personal attack. For the rest, no comment. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: On the other hand, in all those events you mention these past months ago I have nothing to do with them, because contrary of what you may think I don´t care about you. I just commented now because you brought me back, talking explicitly about me, so don't be ridiculous and stop talking about how suspicious is that Asilah is gone and I am back. Pablo Alonso (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pablo Alonso, Im back. Although these days I´m not very active on wikipedia. Btw, I don´t even remember in which context we were accused of being the same editor. Good you are from Asturias its a beautiful place. Iryna Harpy I would not have pinged these guys were it not for the accusations of sockpuppetry by Iñaki which piss me off since I have gone through sockpuppetry investigations a couple of times as a result of this editor. Upon a third accusation, I deemed it relevant to have them in the discussion. Look, yes I have been out of line in the past. I have specifically been out of line with Iñaki in March 2016 (I think thats the date) because he pushed sources which are deemed non-credible in the western world - basically emerging from the ETA PR and support network (this is a fact, not a personal attack). "Basque Conflict" is a politically charged article, which would not be allowed to exist on the Spanish wiki in its current form. None of you want to get into the details, but the fact is that we are dealing with a Israel-Palestine type situation. The way to deal with it is discussion, not conflict or personal accusations. It is something I have finally worked out after a time delving into controversial wikipedia articles. There is no point calling people out on their intentions, even if they are patent. Iñaki holds a grudge because some time back I openly discussed the nature of his political views and the potential legal consequences of certain statements (in Spain they could qualify as a criminal offense). It was a big mistake and I shouldn't have taken this avenue. But that´s it. Nothing I have done recently qualifies as a personal attack.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Asilah1981. Okay, I do actually trust you enough to take your word on the matter. As I noted earlier in the thread, I've encountered your being gruff in the past, but on the ball. We've certainly collaborated without problems, but editors get (justifiably) hot under the collar on contentious topics. I've been around long enough to have not forgotten the ETA and Basque separatist issues, and I spend a lot of editing time and energy on Eastern European articles. When it's yesterday's news for the majority of the West, it's still very much ongoing in reality. I also know how easily WP:GOADed editors become when they encounter each other over and over. Hopefully, any content dispute can be resolved formally. DRNs don't usually work out for these types of topics, but it's worth a try. Anything is a better prospect than an ongoing scuffle behind the scenes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

With all my respect Iryna Harpy..., you are intelligent, diligent and have experience. This is all tacky, confrontational rhetoric in very bad taste attacking me w all the negative words that come to their minds. The last time I had a scuffle with Asilah1981 (must have been Pablo.alonso's case) a similar stage took place. After the short-time username kept attacking me, Asilah1981 showed up saying he had been placidly in the beach. See also striking statements by Asilah1981 here (I am an "occasional editor", sic!) [53],[54] (alteration of sources, check the attitude of Asilah1981), [55] (conspicuous absence of summary lines, an experienced editor?), plus this sequence, [56], [57], [58], [59] (information nowhere to be found) which cannot be more revealing to this moody editor's approach in WP, and I do not know how to make it clearer without being reprimanded for saying this or that. I will not elaborate here on the topic for my own safety if you follow the news in Spain and the evidence I provided on threats. I have provided a long record of evidence. Good night, I won't be coming back. Iñaki LL (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you really willing to accept that it isn't a personal attack to call someone an activist, to call someone racist, to call someone a terrorist apologist? Asilah has done all these things this month alone. Indeed, his insistence that an editor was "racist" and "xenophobic" earned him a week-long block - that finished on 16 December. This is why I come down harder on Asilah. His personal attacks are worse, and he has form. He came straight off a block for calling people racist and started calling people terrorist apologists.

Even in March, while Asilah accepts his behaviour was bad, he says it was because Iñaki did something. It was not Iñaki's fault that Asilah called him a terrorist sympathiser, not in March, not in December. Asilah must take responsibility for his own actions. If he cannot edit without making these kinds of personal attacks he should be prevented from editing completely for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole. The fact that he does not even recognise that it is a personal attack to call someone racist, or a terrorist apologist, suggests strongly that he cannot. Kahastok talk 21:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kahastok for bringing this thread back to track, the basic fact for which I started this. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: Welcome back.Pablo Alonso (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kahastok: I am out of this conversation, but as a last remark to your words and in defense of Asilah, I would like to point out that Iñaki LL is not an objective editor and his editing in the themes aforementioned is significantly biased by his political views, so I could understand some of Asilah´s reactions. Bye. Pablo Alonso (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Very telling a username that has done just about nothing in the WP, but suddenly engages with such a vehemence and animosity against a long-standing editor whose work anyone can see. By the way, bizarrely with very good knowledge of WP rules and syntax. There are no POV editors, there are POV edits, and adding POV comments (change of sensitive wording with no WP:VER), WP:OR or misleading summary edits is. And again based on evidence, Pablo.alonso's short talk page is also a blatant (coarse) personal attack on me WP:NPA, for your consideration to sanction. At that point I did not know I could not delete information, albeit inflammatory or personal attack, from someone's talk page. Pablo.alonso escalated yesterday, instead of toning it down, with new provocative, noisy statements against me [60] (note the appalling quality of the evidence, self-incriminatory), [61] (I removed gross personal attack from my own talk page), [62] (again ,removed from my talk page per WP:HUSH]], etc. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I´m out too, guys. Happy New Year.23:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

Well, Asilah, it's not actually quite that straight forward for you. My apologies to all for allowing the discussion to be derailed by the question of whether Pablo.alonso is your sock or not. Kahastok has set this thread back on track, and my experience with you has been virtually exclusively on Hispanic America related articles. Personally, I can hope for improvements in your behaviour by means of a DRN until the cows come home but, in the end, I'm not the one who's been on the receiving end of some serious abuse. I'm very much aware of the fact that you've just come out of a hefty block as I was following that ANI as an observer. Returning and launching straight back into the same behavioural patterns that got you blocked (and bearing in mind that the fact that it was not a longer block was an exercise in 'by the skin of your teeth') is not acceptable by community standards. You're well aware of the fact that blocks are not punitive, but are imposed in order to allow you time to think on how to improve your behaviour... and I'm laying my cards on the table about being biased in your favour due to prior positive collaboration between us. Iñaki LL is, however, a good faith editor, even if sometimes stumbles around a bit due to his English proficiency being of a lower calibre than yours. Allowing your personal perspectives (which you alluded to earlier in the thread) to affect how you interact with other editors, and to the content of an article, makes for a bad editor regardless of other positive input into Wikipedia's content. I'm wondering whether mentorship might not be an option before it's too late. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy thanks for you input and thoughts and vote of confidence, I will answer briefly:

• 1) Yes, I would very much enjoy having some kind of mentor, I don´t know 90% of Wikipedia policies (I had to look up the Canvass thing, had never heard of it).
• 2) I really do have the right to go away despite the ANI thing. I´m taking 8 days holiday from a very intense job and would like to enjoy it with family and friends.
• 3) It is unfair to say Iñaki´s English is worse than mine. In Spain, only a certified translator can have his level of English. 99% of Spaniards really suck at the language (sorry guys, its true) and he is not one of them. The dearth of Spanish editors is one reason why there is a lot of issues with articles relating to Spain, a lot of mistakes, excessive focus on amateurish and English language sources and some bias. I consider myself quasi-Spanish (on some level) so I´m involving myself lately in this rather broad area of Spain related stuff (mainly history).
• 4) I think Iñaki is a good faith editor, too. He belongs to the Abertzale left, which is fine (they don´t support murdering people for their beliefs anymore since ETA decided to stop killing). The problem is pushing of false narratives and the use of dodgy sources to rewrite history. I have full faith in the (Nationalist) Basque government as a source, or even the PNV (Basque Nationalist Party). But not ETA´s ecosystem. Iñaki does. Does that make him an apologist? Probably not. That term was not warranted, since maybe he did not agree with the abertzale left´s complicity and involvement in ETA´s political assassinations and the constant threats on a sector of Basque society. I have no right to judge, I don´t know him. But, in Spain answering the question "were you against the killing of that village Councillor?", with "I am against all forms of violence, including the State´s torture of our political prisoners", is considered apology of terror.
• 5) Good Faith editors can still be problematic. An editor who is convinced that the Jews were responsible for 9/11 and wants Wikipedia to fully and convincingly reflect arguments explaining this theory, and minimize or "quarantine" sources which debunk them (due to an editors "experience with the State´s lies") is also a good faith editor. The problem lies elsewhere. We still have to find a way of confronting the narrative, even if Iñaki is a good faith editor who tries to follow wikipedia´s rules.
• 6) That is more than I can say for Kahastok, I don´t think Kahastok should be involved in this discussion at all. He has a bitter feud with me and is quite keen to get me blocked since I stumbled on his past username together with his years of activist behavior and long-term topic ban on Gibraltar-related articles. He is basically a Falkland-Gibraltar editor since 2008, which qualify as single-topic editor IMO and I feel no compulsion to assume Good Faith (I don´t anymore). Hopefully, we will not have to interact much during the coming year.

Anyways, I really am off for a few days, as I think you should all. Wikipedia is fun and fascinating but, for most of us, now is the holiday season and we should all wind down a bit.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, going on vacation... What is this latest rant about? How the hell is this editor entitled to say what I am or what I am not politically, when the situation in Spain for certain political views is of criminalization, especially for the Basque Country and Catalonia? How do you dare? How do you dare??? Still learnt nothing? Absolutely nothing? Why this urge to obstrazise and alienate editors??? And with extremely sensitive vocabulary??? I could have classified you long ago many things, and very clearly so, still I haven't out of civility WP:CIVILITY I am more convinced now than ever that you are unable to cooperate in the WP. Indeed you are behaving like Pablo.alonso. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki, Spain is one of the most liberal western democracies in the world and your right to freedom of expression is enshrined in your constitution. The successor party of ETA´s political wing Bildu, is now legal and even in government at local level in a number of places, since it explicitly condemned violence and terrorism. It is even a coalition member of government in Navarre, if I´m not mistaken. As in most democracies in the world, freedom of expression is constrained by certain basic common values society shares - in this case the right to life. As a result, apology of terrorism (i.e. supporting or glorifying killing/extorting/threatening with violence for political reasons) and humiliating victims of terror (normally Basque victims btw) remains illegal. If you feel that this tramples on your rights and is a "sword of damocles" whereby you can't say what you think, you are classifying yourself, not me. I am simply observing and hopefully finding a way of reaching some common ground with you, from now on, in a peaceful and constructive manner. Again, Happy New Year.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I was mentioned above about my dealings with Asilah1981 whom I found to be a very combative and a WP:ICANTHEARYOU editor on White Puerto Ricans. While most of our conflicts were eventually settled, and with a lot of outside help, his issues on that page were eventually settled and it is now left alone, but the experience was largely sour, such as Asilah's complete disregard for others' comments and facts so he can push his own narrative, such as the use of the term "Caucasia" which he pushed heavily on the above article, despite Wikipedian and scientific distinction between white people and Caucausian, articles which he was repeatedly and 3RRly asked to simply read instead of continuing to edit war adding the disfavored link. I have no evidence or claims about him using a sock or other harassment, just that Asilah1981 often needs to calm down and read the arguments and edit summaries of other users and also try to improve his tone and civility. JesseRafe (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: The problem with editors such as yourself or Iryna Harpy is that you seem to believe that you belong to some kind of Olympus of Editors, just because you edit much more than the rest of us, something that you, Iñaki, have pointed out in several occasions with sentences like “a username that has done just about nothing in the WP”. This turns you into arrogant editors that think they’re better than the rest of us and don´t accept or tolerate criticism. Anyone who dares to challenge you becomes automatically a “toxic editor” (sic), “ill-mannered” (sic) or “acerbic” (sic). Apart from dropping all kind of adjectives on those editors, the next step is to recite all kind of WP:rules and delete those comments that contain criticism to your behaviours and your words. For Iryna it is enough to stop there, but you Iñaki, and talking about escalation, tend to go one step further by instigating unfounded sockpuppettry investigations or starting threads like this in the Administrators' noticeboard. This behaviour, as I have reminded you in several occasions, is that of a bully because your only purpose is to intimidate disagreeing editors in order to silence them.

Iñaki, you might be a productive editor, as you define yourself, but for what I see you are also a polemical and controversial one that engages in a lot of quarrels and disputes with a number of editors. This should already ring a bell.

Finally let me just remind you something: Wikipedia does not belong to you and your selected friends from the Editor´s Club, it belongs to all of us. It is a global effort, from those who contribute a lot and from those who contribute less. If you haven´t understood this, then maybe you should go and create Iñakipedia where you can freely censor and silence people and picture there your own reality of things. --Pablo Alonso (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Asilah1981. I'm not sure as to whether you've started your break, but as you expressed interest in having someone mentor you, I can recommend Irondome (who has acknowledged that he would be prepared to take on that role). Iñaki LL and Kahastok, would you be satisfied with this as an outcome? I'm sure you're aware, Kahastok, that I also have great respect for you as an editor, and want to ensure that this thread doesn't just get archived with no recognition of there being real issues to address, and that an opportunity to turn this into a positive outcome for all concerned before any repetition of distressing incidents for all concerned was missed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC,

Hi Iryna Harpy, thanks for bringing this to the conclusion stage. I think I have brought here more evidence of irregular editing, manipulative demeanor, personal attacks and legal threats than any editor can, with a big distress on me during these days, long hours spent searching for detailed evidence I provided, having to alter my normal everyday agenda to deal with this, for a straightforward case of calling me a terrorist and other like things. Only after the editor in question comes from litigation in a like case, less noisy and much more conclusive, straight down to the point: he is calling another editor 'a racist', and here even worse, 'a terrorist'. Crystal-clear. For all his personal circumstances, which I obviously understand, there is no place on the WP for emotional pleas or special cases. We all have our grievances in the Basque conflict, and some very serious ones. Anything less than an incremental block plus an apology will fail to be satisfactory, per a criteria based approach (check previous Gibraltar case). A mentorship is good after that as far as I am concerned.

Plus there is the case of User:Pablo.alonso (please check his contribution history) with a conspicuously confrontational and abusive approach, a new username with striking animosity against me and no respect, refusing community input, and breach of WP:AGF (explicitly stated on his talk page) and a string of [gratuituous but noisy) personal attacks on me. I provided my evidence, he has provided a WP:GRUDGE with erratic rethoric. Does this need another entry? I think it belongs here after all.

This should have concluded much earlier w less noise, just based on evidence. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

For my part, so long as mentor and mentee agree, I think mentorship may be a good way forward in the circumstances. If a mentor can help guide Asilah away from these kinds of problems, then the disruption is prevented without further need for blocks and bans, and that can only be a good thing. But we should be aware that on his current course - i.e. if mentorship does not work - Asilah is heading for an indef block sooner or later. Kahastok talk 12:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kahastok, it is then a different treatment from the previous case in the Gibraltar case, despite being a more serious one, which raises seriously my concerns, for all editors should have the security that a certain type of WP violation entails a clear-cut, more or less rapid resolution to it, and not running this gauntlet of 5-6 days, which is in itself discouraging, daunting, and a punishment. More so seeing that he keeps until the end with his gratuitous, judgemental and accusatory rhetoric per his POV. Very serious attitude problem, plus I will not elaborate refuting topic, per WP:FORUM, etc. An apology could improve things, although we know from the Gibraltar case that it led nowhere (well, was it an apology, really?). Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iñaki LL (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest you make sure you sign your posts, your ping did not work and this looked like it was part of Pablo.Alonso's post below.

Indeed, sorry. That is was I was doing in edit conflict. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I am looking for a good and useful outcome to this ANI that will prevent further issues. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. We aren't about punishing Asilah for his past misdeeds, we're about preventing new ones. Blocking for a week didn't work. There's nothing to say blocking for two weeks will. We do try to avoid indeffing people if we can - but as I say, Asilah will have to change his attitude if he is to stay here long-term. He was nearly indeffed already this month and an indef is not off the table now. Mentorship is a good option for everyone, in that it will help Asilah see why people are objecting to his tone and attitude, and it will hopefully allow him to become a more constructive editor. If it doesn't work, we can bring this back to ANI - having exhausted this option. I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope that Asilah changes his attitude.

Demanding apologies is almost never helpful. It almost never actually gets you an apology and turns it into me-against-you (though this is already evident in many of Asilah's comments). Better for the editor to accept that they have done something wrong and change their attitude in the future.

In terms of the socking, there is no reason why it cannot be brought up at WP:SPI. It is not generally harassment if there is a good case to be made and if the same rejected case is not being made over and over again with no significant new evidence. For my part I think the case is pretty solid and some of the socks are new. I am not normally quick to assume socking, so when I do get that instinct - as I have here - I tend to trust it. But I would suggest you wait and see. If it doesn't happen again, then problem solved. If it does, take it to WP:SPI, and make it clear that there is behavioural evidence that needs to be investigated: Checkuser can tell you a lot of things, it can rule socking in and it can rule it out. But it isn't perfect and there are other ways of demonstrating the point. Kahastok talk 14:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

However, my experience in this case with Checkuser is very frustrating. By experience, I know there are devices to circumvent them, although I do not know how they work. Yes it looks like a purpose-only account. However, this time, is WP:NPA per evidence showing presently on his talk page.

Well, Asilah1981's second last intervention was not an apology, it was an Ok, but again back to judgemental accusatory language, almost tantamount to the same. I was disgusted, it confirms serious attitude problems. If he feels that he can get away with it and in some way he has deterred me from editing, he will come back. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: I should remind you that you initiated this by addressing me here in the very first time in terms of sock, sleeper/dormant account, etc. even after a previous investigation rejected your allegations. So I would ask you for a bit less of hypocrisy when you talk about animosity, disrespect, etc...

Moreover, you make a lot of accusations that you should accompany, at the very least, with specific examples. Because I have the impression that you have an extremely victimized interpretation of what a personal attack is. So go ahead, put together all your evidence (because so far you have brought none), and open another entry. I wonder at what point people is going to start to be fed up of you personal akelarres against other editors. Pablo Alonso (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

More grudge, deprecation and load for the cannons, plus just mirroring words I used, confrontational to the end, the attitude says it all, etc. Self-explanatory, everything has been said. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL , before talking about others, you should check out what you do yourself. Because coming back to the arrogance I talked about before, you show an evident lack of self-criticism. In all your interactions with other editors you seem to follow the funnel´s law: "the broad edge for me, that narrow edge for the rest". So don't be so quick in pointing out attitudes to others that you yourself embrace vigorously.

What I see is that you like to talk a lot, but mostly is fuss, noise and accusatory gibberish. Now you do one of these two things:

1. Get all your (supposed) evidences and orchestrate another (akelarre) case against me.
2. Shut up, leave me alone and don't ever drag me again to the mud of another one of your many quarrels.

Pablo Alonso (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to add. Self-explanatory Iñaki LL (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

What part didn't you understand, the part about opening another case or the part about shutting up if you can't do the first one? By the way, the "self-explanatory" thing seems to work only inside your head; as it doesn't provide any useful information to anyone else, my friendly advice is that you refrain from repeating it so much. Pablo Alonso (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy yes thanks for proposing someone, I´m not sure exactly what mentorship entails but it sounds like something positive, someone who can maybe help me navigate through policies and advise on how to handle oneself on wikipedia. Irondome sounds perfect, if you think he is a good fit. Kahastok I have had harsh words for you, but I honestly cannot do anything but stick by them, even though for a while I really hoped our disputes were the product of a misunderstanding and you were acting in good faith. You know I just can´t assume good faith with you anymore on Gibraltar-related articles and you know why. It´s not just your history with these articles, its the hours wasted confronting ludicrous circular arguments. Now we are not currently embroiled in an edit dispute we can discuss our past interactions on either our talk pages, if you like. Bu I think my response to your rewrite proposal of Disputed Status of Gibraltar was fair and my grievances with you and WCM are still very much legitimate. I would like to have something on the basis of which to change my opinion. So far I have nothing. I´m still annoyed, but I don´t have a personal grudge and I still am trying to understand why you two have turned Gibraltar articles into the Battle of Stalingrad. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, Kahastok I still think a week block should be good for consistency with the previous sanction (making it incremental). Failing that, the relevant section should at least reflect the outcome of the incident, no matter what he decides to do with it later, so that it is clearly registered in his talk page and further dissuades the editor in question to come back to old habits. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean week block plus mentoring of course. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: I don't have any control over the blocking issue, and this thread has been all but abandoned. Irondome will make contact with Asilah1981 and lay down some ground rules (including a 'safe place' for Asilah to discuss edits). I'm of the understanding that Asilah is intending to take a short break anyhow, so any editing activities on his behalf won't resume until they've worked out the strategy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest to the closing administrator that we use mentoring as an alternative option to any further blocks at this stage. This would require Asilah1981 agreeing to certain mentoring criteria, for an initial period of three months so we can get this colleague and perhaps others, back to productive work here. I have left an intro on A's talkpage. The parameters of the mentoring will be discussed on my T/P. To be honest, no party is looking good here in this shambolic mess, with a couple of honourable exceptions, who have attempted to keep focus. Irondome (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Irondome I already agreed wholeheartedly to Iryna Harpy's kind suggestion of proposing someone to act as a mentor. I do not think you should present it as something punitive or an alternative to a block.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed no Asilah1981 and this is not an "either, or" situation. I would like this mentoring if agreed (which you have) to be in some sense a seperate development. I genuinely think it would help you. A lot of this appears to be in your interactions, where you have no neutral individual to check the implications of things said, either by you or to you, before over hastily and sometimes unwisely replying. That is not just you, as far as I can read from the monster thread above, but at least we can help chill your behaviour. Frankly I would like to get to the stage where you can communicate usefully and productively with all the posters above. Irondome (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Irondome Agreed. I have two long term fronts open: Gibraltar-related and with Inaki, the latter being the minor of the two, Inaki having more beef with me than I do with him. Besides that my interactions on Wikipedia tend to be quite placid. To be fair both these fronts were open long before I was involved, so it would perhaps be wrong to consider me a source of conflict as such. I tend to go ballistic only where I perceive (or I have no option but to conclude that) discussions are not being held in good faith. This may explain the widely diverging opinions on the nature of my contribution to the wikipedia project. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Picking up from Irondome's thoughts on the nature of mentoring, I understand mentoring to be a stand-alone alternative to a block (whatever form it may have taken), even though a block may still be the end result should the mentoree fail to address/curtail their problematic behavioural patterns. To impose a block when mentoring has been agreed upon is unjustifiably punitive. The mentoree's activities are already being restricted and stringently monitored by their mentor, and the option of mentoring is certainly not offered to the majority of blocked editors where it is evident that they are hopeless cases who have no sense of their behaviour as being disruptive to the community. It is in no sense a short-term refuge for those who think they can game the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue if Irondome agrees to mentor Asilah1981, he is an editor that has my full confidence. However, my confidence that Asilah1981 "gets it" is extremely low. He was blocked for a week for his incivility and presumption of bad faith and has returned repeating the same presumptions concerning other editors both here and at Drmies talk page. One only has to look at his language to see the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality this user is bringing to his editing i.e. "I have two long term fronts open". His comments above are a classic example of WP:NOTTHEM; he blames other editors for his problems and doesn't accept his own culpability. WCM_email 19:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@WCM: My apologies for not pinging you in when I made the suggestion! The thread had become so long and arduous that I'd quite forgotten that you were one of the editors attacked (and that's not to say that you're not memorable... in a positive way). Yes, I know that it often fails. If it does, however, there will be no question as to the nature of the 'agreement' as being by all parties as it is not simply an informal agreement between the mentor and mentoree. Should it fail, the agreement would be terminated (i.e., an undisputed block) as evidenced by this thread. Cheers for your agreement. P.S. And, yes, I'd noted that myself, which is why I chose to disregard that comment and resume on topic. We'll see how it works out soon enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster that means a hell of a lot to me, take my word for it. Both you and Kahastok I admire to a great extent for a variety of reasons, academic qualities not least among them. I have taken note of both your concerns, and I will create a system with Asilah1981 as part of the mentoring plan which will attempt to mitigate WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and to increase self-responsibilty. (Asilah, a crucial first gauge for me is how you react to this post. I would expect you to exercise self-discipline and not to comment) We have an interesting situation in which a mentor has good relationships with key parties. I would like to exploit that to an eventual position where parties can actually let go of past issues, and actually work constructively together (again). Irondome (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said I have confidence in you Irondome, all I'm really looking for is for my edits to be considered on merit nothing more, nothing less. WCM_email 20:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

While I'm about it, I'll ping JesseRafe as s/he has responded in this discussion, plus Thomas.W and Xabier Armendaritz who may not be available at this time in order that they are aware of mentoring having been put in place. I'll finish up adding to this thread and wish everyone an early Happy New Year should I not encounter you prior that change in dates. Uff, 2017. Space-age stuff when I was growing up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, remember Blade Runner was set in 2019, so science had better get a move on. Still can't get an android in PC World. Bugger. Irondome (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever resolution was come up with, as the distance from this ping to the "edit" link was far too far for me to concern myself with. Whether Asilah makes strides in not being so hostile or not, or on other articles I don't frequent, I hope for the best. I merely, on request, exchanged one remembered notable (-ly frustrating) interaction with the user in question and have no lingering issues or concerns. JesseRafe (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments and bringing this unpleasent incident to a close and taking notice of the dimension of the issue. Also, as Iryna Harpy has pointed, this is an alternative to a block as a result of the editor's dysfunctional attitude to the purposes of WP, otherwise an incremental block or similar would be expected per consistency with precedents. As pointed by Wee Curry Monster, personally I am not at all confident he will improve his ways, since in that case he would just be a different, brand-new Asilah1981, but I fully appreciate Irondome's offer to mentor him, let's hope for the best. Luckily this incident is coming to a close, happy new year to everyone Iñaki LL (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Irondome Yes, well I'm not sure how I'm meant to react here. I guess silence would be the wiser option. I do find you admiring WCM for academic reasons slightly worrying considering the | surreal historical innacuracies he / Kahastok have defended in the recent past. Spending weeks on Wikipedia pushing (to the death) a position equivalent to Mexico winning the American War of Independence is, to say the least, symptomatic of there being some issue requiring attention, if only limited to this group of related articles. Your experience with him maybe different to ours. I hope mentorship will draw attention (or perhaps limit) such crazy exchanges, even if by proxy. The more attention is drawn to these group of articles the better. Lack of attention is what has allowed for these ludicrous situations to arise in the first place. Anyways, looking forward. Asilah1981 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Any question of bias towards any party is unfounded. All here show excellent intellect and fluency, and of course an ability to use sources adroitly. The nub of the issue is as always interpretation and an NPOV approach to sources. Hopefully these pre-requisites to any work here can be achieved through close discussion between parties with the help of a non-involved colleague. I have good relations with many editors, some of whom have radically different POV's on certain issues to myself. That should not be an impediment to good working relations i.m.o, although sometimes strong disagreements can arise. That's par for the course. The trick is to keep it civilised. I hope to get to know you better also Asilah1981, and develop a good-natured working relationship. When this massive thread is closed, I will present to you some guidelines to the mentoring programme. I would like it to be inclusive, and hopefully some of the animus that has developed here can be lessened. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Irondome That is the issue. My problem with the <redacted> continuum is not that I disagree on the opinions of these 2 editors (I disagree with 99% of the world on their opinions). The issue is that, my review of their 8 years of edits and interactions on Gibraltar-related talk pages and my own extensive interactions with them during 2016 have led me to the conclusion that (within the scope of Gibraltar related articles) they do not edit/discuss in good faith. WCM even has the unique skill of | launching an RfC in bad faith , only this month. Note this is not something I will say lightly about anyone. Not about Inaki, who started this ANI, not about pretty much anyone else I have interacted with on Wikipedia. Too many times I have approached these two editors seeking to build bridges or mend fences - every single time responded with silence or outright hostility. I just hope your expectations from mentorship do not include further grovelling to editors who I have witnessed first hand do not respond well to civility or attempts at reconciliation.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately not a great start Asilah1981. "Grovelling" is seriously off-base, and actually rather a grotesque choice of wording. I "grovel" to no one, either here or in real life. I give credit where credit is due, no more, no less. The post above is unfortunately phrased, lets just say that. You appear to be unable to be bigger than your baser instincts, and perhaps lash out without thinking. You will have to make renewed attempts to reach out to the other parties, as part of the mentoring. And no, it would not be perceived as "grovelling", but honestly facing up to your behavioural glitches, which you yourself admit to. Irondome (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: I'm seriously concerned that you haven't grasped the fundamentals of why this report was opened, and why you were offered mentorship as an alternative to being blocked. The last couple of comments you've left seem to indicate that you are labouring under the illusion that mentorship is a method of better arming yourself with policies and guidelines in order to launch a renewed assault, and have no interest in understanding that you have displayed unacceptable behaviour... and that Simon is some sort of soft touch. I hope I'm wrong about this uncomfortable impression that you're only paying lip service to the process and wasting quite a number of editors' time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. Note that in the latest block when asked by Drmies to some kind of apology, he replied with 'I will have to change my strategy' which does not sound very reassuring. Plus in his own words, he was off for a break, right? Well, he is still around adding personal thoughts. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone, Irondome Iryna Harpy Kahastok (whomever else this may concern) I should call to get this episode over and done with, open for too long a time, stating the outcome of it, attempted monitoring period ultimately overridden by indefinitely block. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, sorry Inaki LL. Asilah is now undergoing a 3 month mentoring period under my guidance. Due to the holidays, a set of firm proposals that Asilah will unconditionally follow will be posted on my T/P in the coming hours. I have had experience of this and A. realises I am deadly serious on this and the regidity of the terms. I should expect a closing admin to close this wretched thread with the understanding that A. is now under mentoring, and that any breaches will involve escalating admin action. Irondome (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me bring the latest evidence, the log is all too clear. As much as I appreciate your disposition to find a way out for this case, there are just recurrent infringements piling up one after the other against the editor, with the latest one being an indefinite block. Not that I am impressed by his changes of mood, which makes actually his continuation in the WP all the more disquieting, but check his talk page to see how happily he takes his punishment(s), looks like a trip to the countryside for a child. What is going on? What is going on? Iñaki LL (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Close? User:Asilah1981 was indefinitely blocked by User:Boing! said Zebedee on 31 December and is still blocked. Though it's unclear if the reasons for the block are the same as the issues raised above, there is no reason to keep the thread open longer. If Boing's block of Asilah1981 is lifted for some reason, and the problems reported here continue, I suggest that anyone could open a new ANI thread and link to this one. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree this should be closed now. Asilah1981 is blocked, Drmies is going to speak by email too, and if there is an unblock then it will be under the watching eyes of Irondome, Drmies, and me. I won't close it myself as I issued the block, but I think any uninvolved editor could safely do so now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Erzan

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

---

Erzan (talk · contribs) is an occasional editor who makes changes to people's nationalities in BLPs seemingly through personal preference, then seems prepared to edit war if these are changed back, and refuses to compromise and just wants to argue the toss by providing links that make passing or tenuous references to the subject. Currently they are seeking to prove that the singer Adele is British by providing links to a passing comment she made at the BRIT Awards a few years ago. Yet, if you Google this topic, there are other sources available that contradict the statement. The British v constituent countries argument is an old one on Wikipedia, and they can be highly disruptive. I tend to think they should not be changed without a very good reason, and have pointed this out to the editor concerned, both tonight, and when this issue occurred some months ago. I raised this matter at the helpdesk, and was advised to bring it here for some extra pairs of eyes. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Paul (talk · contribs) any reason why my comment on your talk page was deleted? And how are references of Adele calling herself 'proud to be British' on the Brit Awards weak? Does she have to edit her Wikipedia account herself to make it stronger? To be proud of something you must first identify it, this 'it' is her feeling a great pleasure of the fact that she is British. Could you please tell me what else she would need to say to make it less tenuous? Are references from the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Vogue, Daily Mail weak references? Very confused. Erzan (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleting comments from one's own talk page is allowed. And she was born in, and lives in, England. Hence, she's English. And hence also British, by definition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What's up, Doc? that goes against Wikipedia guidelines that explains edits regarding a person's biography should respect their own self-identification.Erzan (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Erzan, if you're referring to WP:BLPCAT note the limited application: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like they edit war quite often if you take into account their block log and warnings on their talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ezran has now created a thread at WP:DRN#Talk:Adele discussion, which I personally think was opened way too soon. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to hear Ezran explain how someone could be English and not be British. And unless she has a corresponding statement saying she's ashamed to be English, then this is pointless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic either. Isn't English the official term used anyways? Someone would have an English passport and not a Bristish passport, no? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

British passport, so nope, not an English passport. Presumably because Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of Britain and would have the same passport as an English man. For that matter, you can be British without being English, I just don't know that it is possible for it to be the other way around. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that the so-called "British" passport is actually issued by the UK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The distinction between GB and UK being Northern Ireland? since I included it within the context of the "British" passport figuring that Northern Ireland(ers) would have the same passport as well, as I am aware it's UK of GB and NI in acronymified form. Hence, the British passport actually extends a little beyond Britain in this sense. I think that is what you're referring to. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I take "British" to be an abbreviation, although "UK" would be more accurate. The basic problem with this edit war is that trying to claim she "identifies" as British implies she doesn't identify as "English", and there's no evidence for that. In fact, during her "car pool karaoke" with James Corden, it was raining, and she said, "Your viewers will think England is rubbish!" Note she said "England", not "Britain", and certainly it rains a lot throughout the UK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Note she refers to being English here (as well as being descended from a whole bunch of other nationalities) which kind of contradicts what she said at the BRIT Awards. As I've said previously somewhere else, I really don't care which one we use, but I do think we should have some kind of consensus on the matter because it does lead to disruption. This is Paul (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There's also the matter of context. She was talking about "waving our flag" and so on. Then Corden was forced to interrupt her before she could say anything else. So drawing conclusions about her self-identity from that one comment is called "original synthesis". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If an American said they were from California but also said they are a 'proud American'. Would it not be sensible to put American? After all they have an American passport, have legal American citizenship and also stated they are proud of their national identity. Should the same logic not apply to Adele? she has a UK passport, a British national, has said she is proud of her British identity and has been described as British by plenty of sources. Her being from England is stated in her birthplace. Her being British and proud of it could at least be demonstrated by editing her summary intro as 'British' with a reference to her speech at the Brit Award? Also can a volunteer please confirm or deny, that the suggestion that the BBC, Guardian or Telegraph make 'weak' sources? thank you. Erzan (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

They are sources for her having made that statement. They are insufficient for proving that she self-identifies as British rather than English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

So she has a British passport, a legal British citizen, plenty of credible sources describe as British, she is proud to be British according to the sources and her being from England is already stated in the article. So what is the matter with changing the intro from English to British? She has made a positive claim to her self identity, waiting to acknowledge that in case she claims to be proud of being a,b,c means you cannot edit someone being American in case they say they are proud to be a Black American. Is that not inconsistent? Also can someone please confirm or deny, that the sources used like the BBC, Guardian and the Telegraph are strong? Because that was one of reasons for this dispute to even occur. Thank you. Erzan (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing that says she "self-identifies" as British rather than English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That is a weak argument. There is no such thing as Black American. Black is a race and American is a nationality. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And comparing "American" to "British" is a weak argument. Crabapples and oranges. And a good portion of this should be moved back to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Being Black (or African) American is a thing and that is why pages like Barack Obama have in his summary that she is the first Black American. It's an identity, there's literally a massive article on wikipedia about Black Americans. Yes being American is also an identity too, which also in Obama's summary. Look at this way, if a previously unknown celeb who came out as Transgender on stage and declared 'I am proud to be Male". Are you seriously suggesting to wait for them to confirm or deny they were not also proud of being once sexually a Female? because that is what the logic implies. Erzan (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, black is a race. African American is an ethnic group. They are those who have American nationality with African ancestry, predominantly black Africans. We don't count white Europeans as a nationality or citizenship because white is a race. European is just a term for those belonging to Europe. I think you have yourself confused. I agree with Bugs. Further discussion should be on the article talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• In the UK's case - biographies will generally follow a combination of nationality (British) where no preference or self-identification used the rest of the time where they have made a clear statement. Sean Connery is a Scottish actor, Shirley Bassey is a Welsh singer etc. It doesnt come up with English notables as much because they are far far less likely to make an issue of being English (rather than British) than the Scots, Welsh or Irish are. Less of a chip about it. Theoretically if an English notable made an issue of being English rather than British, their biography would reflect that in line with all the other biographies of UK nationals (which regardless of their personal preference, all carry UK passports) but I cant think offhand of anyone who has, but I am sure there must be one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Only in death, if you are a UK of GB & NI citizen, you are British unless you are predominantly described otherwise. Self-identification would only be a contributory factor. Nor does place of birth matter much, (Lloyd George was born in England, Tony Blair in Scotland, the former is usually seen as Welsh, the latter as British). So unless sources predominantly describe this person as 'English', she isn't. There are some silly arguments above, I'm sure there are many Scots and Welsh and NI-ish, who, in different contexts would describe themselves both as being proudly 'Welsh/Sc/NI-ish' and proudly "British', but unless sources mainly describe them as 'Welsh/Sc/NI/English', they are British, and people and sources don't often emphasise, (or even mention?) 'English-ness'. Pincrete (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• JFK said Ich bin ein Berliner so I guess he was German. Will you people put a lid on it? EEng 17:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A donut to be more accurate. He was a donut. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, not that old chestnut. EEng 13:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

To be sure: see here, here, here, and here, among many other citations, for confirmation that Kennedy said exactly what he meant to say, and that, indeed, there was no other concise way to phrase it to convey the connotations of JFK's message to the citizens of Berlin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, BMK I already knew all of that, though I was under the impression he could omit the "ein" and just say Ich bin Berliner. I just couldn't resist the opportunity. Even my old German teacher used to make the same joke. Bist du ein Berliner BMK? Ich komme aus Augsburg und wohne in Australien. I know only very limited German so I hope that's all correct. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just getting up to speed here, but it seems to me that the questions here are simply has Erzan done anything wrong, and is there any admin action that can help resolve things. The content can be fine and the edit still problematical, or conversely, the content can be problematical but the edit can be completely blameless (we all make mistakes, and are encouraged to be bold).

It's fine to bring such issues here for other pairs of eyes, and good to try to answer them rather than be legalistic about which forum is correct. My call is we've done that and the content dispute now needs to go elsewhere. Happy to discuss this (maybe on my talk page).

But I'd like to invite User:This is Paul to rephrase the question they want ANI to answer, trying not to judge one way or another whether Adele is British (or not), either here or (again) on my talk page if they'd prefer. Andrewa (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I want to protest your bland exclusion of persons with only one eye from the population of potential observers. Very callous of you. EEng 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've said previously, I'm not bothered whether we say Adele is English or British, but the problem with the British v Her constituent countries debate is that it is disruptive because someone changes it from one to the other out of personal preference, then someone else does the opposite at some later date because it's their personal preference. This kind of thing happens across a lot of articles concerning people from the UK, and I raised the matter at the helpdesk in this particular case as it had previously been debated on the talk page with a consensus being reached, and Erzan seemed unwilling to engage in further discussion about the topic. I was advised to come here, which is what I did. Andrew, not sure how you want me to rephrase the question so perhaps you could elaborate a little. This is Paul (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Some links and diffs would help... I'll provide a start since you don't seem to have done so.

For a start this is your attempt to discuss on their talk page, is that right? The following edit then is your notification of raising the issue here at ANI, and the next (and last to date) is Erzan blanking the page.

I can understand them not wanting to discuss with another who tells them to go away and find something else to do, and leave Wikipedia to the grown-ups. But we all lose our cool from time to time, and it doesn't excuse their behaviour prior to this post.

You mention a previous consensus, but again didn't link to it. Do you mean at Talk:Adele/Archive 2#She is British where the two of you express your different opinions, or is it one of the subsequent relevant sections from Talk:Adele/Archive 3? Or somewhere else? Andrewa (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

So, my first attempt at discussing this can be found in this thread which I started in May 2016, and was archived on 27 December, and initiated by edits such as this and this (evidently it had been an issue before I became involved). The outcome of that discussion seems to be 'let's stick with the status quo', and I think it was me who inserted a hidden note in the article stressing that the nationality should not be changed without first gaining consensus from others. Erzan is an occasional editor, but has returned from time to time to periodically continue to make the change (see here for example from June 2016 and thes most recent ones from December here, here and here). Attempts to discuss this with Erzan have failed (see here for example; there's also an allegation of 'making threats' in my talk page archives here). I also drawer your attention to the following series edits from another article (here and here), which I believe demonstrate a latent tendentiousness. My comments here were borne out of frustration over this. It wastes everybody's time when we could be getting on with something more constructive. This is Paul (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say it, but if you really need all of these links to back up your claim of consensus, I have to wonder whether the claim is completely bogus. Is there one where you think consensus is clear? Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If this question is for me, I did say the outcome of the particular discussion I started was 'let's stick with the status quo'. I guess a more accurate description might have been 'we really can't decide'. In truth there's no consensus for one above the other. My argument is changing these things just for the sake of it is pointless. I've lost count of the number of arguments in BLPs over, for example, Scottish versus British. Someone's always going to disagree with whatever is says in such cases. As I stated at the beginning of this thread that I tend to revert to whatever the text originally said unless there's a very good argument to change it. Providing a bunch of links where someone makes a vague comment isn't enough. Maybe we need some kind of policy on this topic, as otherwise this issue will present itself again in other articles. This is Paul (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Meatpuppet incident at Albert Cashier

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

---

Recently I came across a dispute at Albert Cashier between Roscelese, a long time Wikipedia editor, and Lgbt.history.ig, an editor who created an account only quite recently. The dispute concerns whether the subject of the article should be referred to as a woman who dressed as a man or as a "transman", and some edit warring between Roscelese and Lgbt.history.ig took place over this issue. I stated on the article's talk page that I agreed with Roscelese's view, and I reverted the article to the version prior to the edit war. My edit was then reverted by Mlr78731, a brand new account started today that has so far made no other edits. This is disturbing because Lgbt.history.ig had made comments on the talk page about getting people who agree with their views to support them at the article: "I am the creator and co-administrator of @lgbt_history, an Instagram account with just under 60,000 followers; if Cashier is misgendered on Wikipedia again, I will make sure that our followers are made aware of your efforts at queer erasure and let them know how to remedy it." Based on that comment, and on the appearance of a brand new account supporting Lgbt.history.ig, it would appear that a serious violation of WP:MEATPUPPETRY has occurred and that administrator intervention is required. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Eh, Mlr78731 is definitely a puppet made of either fabric or meat, but I left a talkpage warning earlier, and you pointed Lgbt.history.ig to the relevant policies on the article talkpage - I'm not sure this needs to be an ANI case unless the account continues editing or more puppets appear. It might happen, given Lgbt.history.ig's comments, but this seems premature. Also, dude, the scarequotes are uncalled-for and rude. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock blocked indef and Lgbt.history.ig blocked 1 week by Ponyo for abusing multiple accounts -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Mlr78731 is  Technically indistinguishable from Lgbt.history.ig. I've blocked the sock account indefinitely and the master one week. If, based on discussion here, there is consensus that the block needs to be modified please go ahead and make any changes without need of notifying me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are we so easy on sockmasters? This is about the worst thing someone can do. Why isn't the block six months? A year? Indefinite until they humbly demonstrate an understanding of what they've done? EEng 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Frankly, and only 1/3 seriously, if it were up to me I'd issue an indef simply for using a stupid term like queer erasure. Give me a break.

Having used sockpuppets myself in the past, and having been given a second chance by Bbb23, who blocked me for only a month for sockpuppetry when he could instead have blocked me indefinitely had he wished to, I think it is reasonable that Lgbt.history.ig should be given a second chance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88 (聖やや) here. Don't ask. I agree with FKC in general here (I too have "socked" in the past, although under very specific circumstances). That said, if there is any hint that Lgbt.history.ig doesn't recognize that what they did was wrong or denies that the account was them, their block should be extended. 106.171.73.133 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• A further question is why (at least) two seasoned editors cannot expend the same effort they spent on sourcing a single word in the lede to sourcing the rest of the article. Can anyone provide any good reason why ~half of it should not be removed as unsourced material...? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 07:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It would be better to discuss this issue at the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Half my question at least was regarding behaviour, and that is firmly within the purview of this board. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• • As a matter of policy, as it is not a BLP - unsourced material is not due to be removed straight away as sources may be found (in a BLP it would be removed until sources were presented) unless it is controversial or unlikely in some way. It could be removed, but in many cases that is counter productive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely- I think it's called- imaginatively!- WP:BDP. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

One-hundred-and-one years ago is not *recently dead". --Calton | Talk 02:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Meatpuppets now being recruited on tumblr

http://lgbt-history-archive.tumblr.com/post/155182034892/recently-we-did-a-post-on-albert-cashier-a-civil If actual semiprotection is premature, can some admin keep an eye on the article? EEng 00:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Also, who came up with a stupid name like tumblr, anyway?

We've had at least one meat puppet editing the article in coordination with Lgbt.history.ig now: [63]. LeGarde-Chiourme insisted on the talk page that he was unaware of the issue at hand and that his edit was just incidental, but...: [64]. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's always a hoot the way these types think no one will notice what they're up to. EEng 15:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Has this been going on longer than we think? About a month before lgbt.history showed up, there was Special:Contributions/Queerasarainbow and Special:Contributions/LeGarde-Chiourme is another super-fishy new account (although not technically an SPA, it was clearly created by either lgbt.history or someone they contacted off-wiki). 106.171.73.133 (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. LeGarde-Chiorume is a known meatpuppet in this situation (technically they had a pre-existing French Wikipedia account, but they came to this project in response to Lgbt.history's general social media meat puppetry call; I've saved a copy of a dialogue in which they discuss these activities on tumblr, though Lgbt.history has now deleted the initial post).

I had not seen Queerasarainbow's edit before now, but I decided to see if the name matched a named account on tumblr, and sure enough: [65]. I think you're probably correct; it does seem as if this is not the first time that Lgbt.history has coordinated meat puppets to support their view, and I dare say at this point that there are probably additional socks as well. It's worth noting also that Lgbt.history has now deleted the 'call to arms' tumblr post, so I suspect they have grown wise to discussing this kind of behaviour out in the open, so to speak, and that any further coordination will be conducted through private/closed group channels on social media. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, having noted now that all three of these users have edited only this one article, and considering the fact that they all three used their common social media handles to do so, I would guess that this is their first foray into this kind of canvassing (and probably Wikipedia in general). That is, we are not looking at a complicated, nuanced or long-standing effort to control content. So we can cross our fingers and hope these folks have learned from this episode what will and will not fly here and that they will apply themselves to working within policy. Of course, it could just as easily go the other way--they will simply rededicate themselves to the disruption through other accounts, not realizing that we have the tools to readily catch such activities. We'll just have to wait and see. I still support an indef for Lgbt.history though--at least until they have shown some indication that they understand what needs to change here with regard to their behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(Still Hijiri. Still unable to log in. Still no idea why.) Meh. The wording of the off-site canvassing message indicates that they were already aware that what they were doing was wrong and were trying to game the system by canvassing followers who already had Wikipedia accounts. They probably won't learn from this unless it is explicitly stated, so I will. Any one of their Tumblr/Instagram followers who already had a Wikipedia account and was a regular contributor would respond to them posting that by reporting them for off-site canvassing, not by doing what they wanted them to do. 182.251.141.136 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree; you have to think that the overwhelming majority of editors with even a sliver of experience would see the need to report this, and certainly would not respond the blatant effort at canvassing/meat puppetry. In fact, that may very well be what happened here, since this tumblr post was brought to our attention by an editor who had previously been uninvolved in the article. As to whether the parties will learn the right lesson here, I agree there is reason to be skeptical, but I'm just not prepared to assume either way. It could be that the tumblr post was taken down to be more surreptitious about circumventing process, or it could be that Lgbt.history realized this was a losing strategy that no good could come from. Again, kind of doubtful, given their earlier behaviour, but I've seen other editors turn around and become productive members of the community after worse. On the other hand, Lgbt.history has not appealed the block in any way, so this may just be the end of their interest in the project. In any event, there's been no further attempts by SPAs to subvert consensus on the article since this thread began, so hopefully we've seen the end of the disruption from this group, whether they continue to participate here or not.

On a side note, have you considered describing your login issue at WP:VPT or WP:HD? Between them, I bet there's one guru or another there that could tell you what's going on. In fact, VPT currently has a thread that may or may not be related to your issue. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Two-part proposal

First off, I take it for granted that Lgbt.history.ig needs to be indeffed at this point. Not only did they respond to Ponyo's generously light sanction for socking by immediately reaching out to their thousands of followers and encouraging mass disruption of the article, but every indication given in the discussion on the talk page suggests that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, but is in fact an SPA on an ideological mission. They have apparently made no effort to study up upon this project, it's policies and how to effectively generate consensus and have given no indication that they will. Numerous editors (most sympathetic to LGBT.history.ag's view to varying degrees) have made good-faith efforts to reach out to the editor to try to bridge the gap between LGBT.history.ag's goal and the approach community consensus demands of us here. Those editors have now been slurred as "transphobic" on a public forum as part of the effort to whip LGBT.history.ag's twitter/instagram audience into a frenzy to spam the article with edits consistent with their view. As this user demonstrates virtually zero probability of coming around to understand the Wikipedia process, let alone working within it, I don't see any option but an indef, backed by strong administrative monitoring of the article to deal with the likely further socks.

Second, though it pains me to say it, its very likely we will need some page protection (semi or possibly even full) for a time, in order to fend off a potentially large number of meat-puppets. However, I would like to request that this protection be postponed until the disruption manifests; a number of us, notwithstanding LGBT.history.ag's unacceptable tactics, believe that the article could stand with some alterations to better contextualize the trans theory (which is sufficiently sourced). There's a middle ground approach here which would serve both our policies and the reader, and I think it would be best to try to make those middle-ground changes before the article gets locked down. In other words, let's not toss out the baby just because one disruptive user has sullied the bathwater. I would be surprised if we don't eventually have to impose page protection here in the next day or so, given the scale of the meatpuppetry campaign under way, but let's see what we can't get done in the meantime. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support extension of block for User:Lgbt.history.ig, as that Tumblr post was effectively a call to arms with the intention of circumventing the community. Agree with the stuff and substance of the second half of the proposal, but we should hold off on any action until we see the actual extent of the meatpuppetry, if and when it occurs. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - under conditions advanced by FIM above, to wait and see how effective the call for meatpuppetry was. So far, only regular WP editors have worked on the article recently, but if we see a march of puppets...wham! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd just like to note that the Tumblr post [66] is explicitly canvassing existing Wikipedia editors, rather than recruiting new meat-puppets. One new meat-puppet seems to have appeared, but that was not the stated intention of the Tumblr post, rather its intent was off-wiki canvassing. This means that semi-protection may not be effective. Andrewa (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support both. As someone who's having some trouble logging in on my main editing device at the moment (my laptop is extremely slow and my phone isn't ideal for editing Wikipedia) it sucks that I wouldn't be able to make edits like this without switching devices, but yeah, this user's behaviour is completely inappropriate and this is the only way to prevent it for the foreseeable future. 106.171.73.133 (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just confirming while able to log in that the above is me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have indeffed Lgbt.history.ig based on off-wiki canvassing and noting the supporting comments here. BethNaught (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• As a gay man I'm ashamed not so much by the attempt to disrupt, but by the transparent incompetence of it. If you're gonna be all in-your-face militant and shit on others' behalf, please know how to not fall on your face. EEng 22:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Moxy

Very worrying that this editor professes to "have fun seeing them deal with the problem again and again and again. In time theses editors will get burnt out or see the light." He's referring to infobox warring and enforcement, and the fact that many articles without an infobox become a target and often result in unpleasant conflict and people trying to force one. This is contrary to the principle of wikipedia and is disruptive. Nobody should be having "fun" in seeing disruption and editors burn out. Arb have ruled that infoboxes are not compulsory, and this attitude to a situation which is putting off some of our best editors from writing articles is a major site problem.

Even after this he continues to make light of the time wasting aspects of infobox disputes...

Proposal

Given Moxy's confession, I propose that he is banned from being involved with infobox warring discussions for the benefit of the site. He has a long history of commenting in infobox discussions and inflaming situations, because he has "fun" doing it. It's not right and should be stopped. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Also discouraging is the inference re: UK editors not being as well-educated as those in the US and Canada. We hope (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment The user's comments are confrontational regarding the infobox issue. He's gotten his wish re: comment about "burning out". "I have been confronting you over and over again on the fundamentals of why we are here ...this is a big thing." Exchange with an editor who left in September 2016. Again help desk questions wasting our time The user posts about a HelpDesk question from a day earlier he appears to not be involved in. The exchange is with a user who is semi-retired as of September 2016. The editor takes the tone that he's the voice of WP and we should all listen to him.

I left at the same time and also over the infobox problem; have only recently started doing some limited editing--no new text content work-only maintenance of existing articles I've been involved with. If the infobox bullying is beginning again, I'll be glad to leave again. We hope (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support -- What's more suspicious is the rather irritating IP which is currently itching away like an untreated case of thrush. I wouldn't be surprised if old Moxy and the troll are one of the same. Cassianto^Talk 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think AT&T operates in Canada, where Moxy self-identifies as living. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I live in Picton Ontario Canada and work at Ottawa University. This POV that all IP inquiries are invalid is a problem ...should not delete comments for this reason. ....will log out and edit with my ip and mac for all to see.--64.228.141.191 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I am just here to respond to Dianaa. AT&T does in fact not operate in Canada. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: this seems related to a discussion on the talk of Stanley Kubrick. I find edits by other participants - including some edit summaries - more worrysome than Moxy's appeal to care about accessibility with the readers in mind. - I tried to ignore the discussion and so far succeeded. Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Definitely need to put an end to this. JAGUAR  17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. No problem, not commenting on these anymore. Very rare situation as i dont add or remove them. I apologize if I made anyone upset just hard to keep being insulted all the time. I believe in time the community will take care of the problem. As for my comment on burnouts this is simply through experience that I've seen.... not an effort on my part to make you upset.--Moxy (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You regularly comment in infobox discussions, this would affect that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes i have commented many times on about 5 bios. Mostly because readers inquiry at the help desks....but yes I will not reply to inquiries at the help desk or comment about them. I dont think i am in the wrong here.....just see that the POV on this will not change dispite the studies and readers requests. As you know I not involved in the edit wars you guys get into over this so that won't change. --Moxy (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The concern isn't that you edit war or force infoboxes yourself. It's your conduct on talk pages and trolling which is problematic. Articles like Stanley Kubrick have become fodder for this sort of disruptive behaviour, it's like you're trying to bait us into conflict again. You even admit to enjoy seeing the same argument unfold again and again. Anybody here who likes to see time wasting discussions, rather than wanting to contribute to content and work with editors to build content should problably be banned entirely from the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup your correct I do join in when I see it come up on certain pages....like many do. Do I belive I am the big problem editor involved in these talks all over.....not even close. Like most here I edit and join debates that I find interesting and are fun to debate. I belive accessibility should be our biggest concern. ....others not from my POV. My reputation here speaks for itself....dispite my dyslexic grammer problems on talks that some enjoy point out.--Moxy (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment I have opened a formal RfC on the talk page. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support- It is absolutely outrageous that Moxy should revel in the "fun" of pestering other users about infoboxes "again and again and again" and gloat about editors getting burnt out and retiring over this issue (as has happened quite recently). Moxy says s/he will not participate in infobox discussions any more but should be formally restricted from doing so,in case Moxy finds the "fun" too tempting to stay away.Smeat75 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have that all wrong.... I enjoy watching them squirm over and over again trying to defend a position of ignorances. I dont hound them ,,,just let them know when it comes up by our readers at the help desk etc...as I do with many many topics, I also try to explained to our readers and IP editors why they are being diminished or post simply deleted. But if all think I am the main problem by all means to what you will...but as we all know and have seen in the past ...we have editors causing much more problems during the debates. I wish all a good new year and hope our editors think of our readers and not simply side with there friends....stand on your own 2 feet. Just look see for yourself ...should we have bullies??-- Moxy (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, as I don't wish to see us zap editors who haven't been vandalizing articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless every editor, pro and con, who has displayed obsessive behavior over the ongoing and deeply counterproductive infobox war is also topic banned. That being said, Moxy should definitely knock off the gloating. [[User:Cullen328Cullen³²⁸]] Let's discuss it 05:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles says "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Most proponents and opponents of infoboxes have long made up their minds, so gaining consensus will be often impossible. In that case, which should quickly become clear from the discussion, the style set by the main contributor should prevail. Is there anywhere a statement saying "persisting in infobox wars is disruptive?" If not, where would be the right place to make such a statement? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban of Moxy support topic ban of User:Cassianto Appears that we have ongoing issues in this area. Here we have User:Cassianto closing a discussion in which they were the main person involved[67] and in which they have taken a strong position. User:Dr._Blofeld also appears very much involved. Looking at comments by Cassianto like this "I don't know if you're meaning to be an insufferable little prick, or if you're just drunk or on drugs. Whatever it is, I suggest you go and have a lay down somewhere and decide which one it is." I am; however, thinking Cass might need a topic ban from this area. Will start a new section for that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually not true on my part, I was ignoring the conflict on the Kubrick talk page and I've been very careful not to personally attack anybody or get heated. I wouldn't have brought this up if it had just remained a dispute on Kubrick's talk page. I just thought Moxy's comment showed the real malicious intent behind infobox disputes which is wrong. It's only since another RFC has opened that I've simply questioned the legitimacy of the infobox and asked them why they think it's an essential feature.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how the decision was made, but Gerda (and perhaps others?) has a two-comment limit on infobox discussions. Perhaps if we had a bit more of that for the more obsessive and WP:BLUDGEON-y commenters? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - You can't ban someone for responding to shameless & obvious baiting while the people who baited them sit back and chuckle. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Take it to WP:Thought Police. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose—absurd and dishonest to interpret such a comment as indicating Moxy participates in these discussions for the "fun" of it. It must be reiterated that the proposers and most of the supporters are very, very involved, and some of them are known for how often they show up to WP:BLUDGEON infobox discussions (far more often than Moxy shows up at all). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Topic BanTrouting for Moxy, block of significant length for Cassianto. I apologize folks, this is going to be a TLDR for some of you, and if so, I won't take exception to your skipping it. But I've been watching this ongoing battle over the infoboxes from a distance for years now and I don't think I can express my opinion of the whole affair (nor some of the specific conduct here) without some protracted discussion. I'm going to self-collapse most of this post so not as to needlessly length this thread for everyone scrolling through ANI right now. Read on at your own inclination.

Extended content

I appreciate that there is a lot of context for this particular dispute; I'm aware of it because, for years now, random bot-generated notices have brought me to one RfC after another where two groups of editors wage massive and invariably incivil brawls over the inclusion of infoboxes and the minutia of their format. Absolutely without exception one sees a large number of extremely familiar faces in each of these group melees and it became obvious to me some years ago that both sides were using certain WikiProjects as platforms to side-step canvassing restrictions by posting general "call to arms" notices in order to bring their entire side rushing in for each and every debate--even though each camp is aware that the other is staking out those same projects and will call in their own reinforcements in response, resulting in a massive deadlock, often surrounded by caustic language. Every iteration that I am summoned to leaves me more gobsmacked than the last at how thoroughly these editors continue to fail to act like the veteran editors they are--and frankly, failing to just act like adults on this topic period. It is probably en.Wikipedia's longest running content dispute, and without doubt the one that most ought to embarrass not just its participants, but indeed all of us, for our failure to put a stop to it (not withstanding numerous sanctions and a massive ArbCom case). Moxy and Cassianto are both without question amongst those familiar faces, but the problems with their conduct in this particular instance differ, and so I believe differing approaches are called for in response to said conduct. Moxy's comment was probably ill-considered, given the propensity towards hyperbolic interpretation that dominates this roving content war, but I can't say it is deserving of sanction. I was initially prepared to endorse a topic ban for Moxy based on the excerpted language presented by Dr. Blofield above, but once I followed the diff back and read the comment in its entirety, it was clear that there is some selective quoting going on here, whether intentional or not. Looking at Moxy's full comment, I think it's immediately clear that they were neither espousing plans to personally fatigue other editors nor encouraging others to do anything similar. In fact, the entire point of their comments were to calm a new IP editor and to tell them to not get too wound up over the topic. Further, Moxy seems to be suggesting that the reason he/she expects the anti-infobox camp to wear out over time is that they will clash time and again with new/IP editors who simply want infoboxes by and large--I kind of doubt that Moxy can prove that assertion, but it is incidental to the discussion here. Looking at the entirety of Moxy's comment, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can genuinely believe that Moxy was making a vow to engage in disruptive behaviour--except for the fact that both sides have been at this for so long that they are determined to see the worst in eachother and will seize on anything that looks like ammunition in this battle of wills. Cassianto's case is different. Even if Moxy had made an unambigous vow to bait and wear down his competition, Cassianto's "insufferable little prick" comment would still be completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter the context--that kind of profane language, when used in that massively hostile and vitriolic manner, is without exception a violation of WP:Civility. Nor does this seem to be an isolated case for this user; all too often, Cassianto appears to resort to this kind of expletive-filled and derogatory language in response to differences of opinion. I've personally witnessed very similar behaviour when responding to notices for disputes to which Cassianto is a party, and while I'd like to AGF and assume this is non-representative of his conduct on Wikipedia, his block log does not provide confidence for that assumption; in the past two and a half years, he has racked up a startling number of blocks, almost all of them for personal attacks, hostility, and unrelenting combativeness (the comments of the blocking admins here are worth taking note of). This is an unacceptable pattern of incivility, non-collegiality, and (frankly) a basic lack of the baseline social WP:Competence we expect out of a user on this project. Does anyone here, being an experienced member of this community, doubt that if a new or IP editor made the same "insufferable little prick" comment, they would have been blocked in no time flat? Because I think that block probably would have come in minutes. And I don't think this user ought to be given a pass because he has been contributing for longer; quite the contrary, Cassianto really ought to know better at this point. He also ought to know that it's not acceptable to denigrate entire nationalities and transform content discussions into "us vs. them" contests between the even-tempered English and clueless Americans: [68], [69]. As someone with a foot in both cultures (and hell, just as someone who doesn't like bigoted "observations"), I find that ignorant, offensive, and also unacceptable for this project. All of that said, and in fairness to Cassianto, the objectionable conduct here was not a product of the infobox wars per se, so I agree that Doc James' proposal was not well-advised (though I don't think Doc should have gotten the guff he did for wanting to restrain this behaviour in general). A TBAN would seem both excessive and poorly targeted to address the core issue here. I'd suggest instead a block, the length of which should be discussed by the community but which I propose should at the least be longer than any previous block Cassianto has received for personal attacks. The message needs to become louder for this user that they need to find a way to discuss content and policy disagreements (even long-standing and tense ones) without recourse to personal insults. Members of this community are not allowed to treat eachother in such a manner, no matter how worked up they get.

Snow ^{let's rap} 18:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Moxy is a solid editor, and the usual anti-infobox group is ganging up on Moxy. We are never going to have an end to this issue, and bashing the people who support infoboxes (which are used on the majority of wikipedia articles) is not going to help the project. The useless ArbCom decision we all have to live with is that each and every single article has a stand-alone infobox discussion decided on a case by case basis, with civility and no personal attacks. This crap has to stop. Trout all around. Montanabw^(talk) 00:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Generally speaking, I've always felt that allowing every article's editors to decide the specifics of its content (within general guidelines) was the prudent course of action. But in this instance, I agree with you. These ceaseless, acrimonious clashes between basically the same two groups of deeply entrenched editors have got to stop, and because there are too many personalities involved here who have just completely lost perspective, it may be time to host a largescale community discussion at WP:CD or WP:VPP in order to amend the MoS accordingly. On that point, I should note that you've misremembered the ruling of the ArbCom case. It didn't specifically lay down any mandates regarding infoboxes--none that I can remember anyway. Rather the focus of that case was the policy now enshrined in WP:Advice pages; namely, you cannot use a WikiProject to create idiosyncratic rules regarding all articles you perceive to be within that Project's scope and then try to apply those rules as if they were policy that was binding on individual articles. Rather you always have to generate a WP:local consensus on a given article, and you can't argue "it must be done like X, because the editors at WikiProject Y think that is best." So yes, technically you have forge a consensus about what is the appropriate content call within policy for every infobox discussion, but it's not specific to infoboxes; it's true of any content dispute. The case also handed out numerous sanctions to partisans on both sides who showed an inability to back down. Unfortunately its muting effect on the overall frequency and tone of infobox disputes was extremely short-lived.

However, none of that in any way prevents the community from applying the usual consensus process for widescale policy (that is to say WP:PROPOSAL) from forming new style and content guidelines which govern particular content. We do that constantly, and community consensus still trumps local consensus. So if the community is fed up enough with this nonsense, we absolutely can amend MoS with more concrete guidance regarding when infoboxes are (or are not) advised, mandated, or prohibited. And I daresay we're overdue to take the issue on and put an end to this years' long disruption and frequent pettiness. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think that sanctioning Moxey for that comment is going to improve either the encyclopedia or the environment in which we find ourselves. The issue of whether an infobox improves an article is complex and not amenable to generalisations, so unfortunately it has to be worked out article by article. For that to happen without rancour and escalating ill-will, we need to find ways of toning down the rhetoric and trying harder to accommodate those whose views we disagree with. I've made a start at trying to explain as many issues on a subpage of my user space, in anticipation of ArbCom eventually asking the community to develop more detailed and nuanced guidance that the curt couple of sentences we have now. In this case, I'm sure if we asked Moxey to dispel the impression that s/he was having "fun" in seeing editors burn out, we'd quickly get an assurance that that is not the case. I think you'll find that Moxey has a debilitating condition that makes it difficult for him/her to accurately control a mouse, which makes collapsed infoboxes a problem for him/her and that's often what the comments relate to. It's useful for me when trying to find technical solutions to problems to have a reminder that not everybody has the same facility in interacting with the interface as the majority of us do. @Dr. Blofeld:: you've made your point and it's taken. We've had the predictable arguments, and I believe that Moxey is very likely to be more circumspect in future. I wish I could persuade my friend Cassianto not to be so heated in his exchanges, although I accept that he often finds himself frustrated. I guess we all do. Anyway, Blofeld, is there any chance that you could now call it a day and wrap up this thread? I doubt there's much more to be gained from continuing it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I was ignoring the Kubrick dispute, I only brought this up when I saw Moxy's remark which just shows you the malicious intent when infobox discussions begin, people enjoy seeing Cassianto and others get annoyed. I can tell that there is a group of people who enjoy pulling the string on this, so it's a confession really. Moxy's comments were bang out of order, whether he has serious issues in RL or not. He is a frequent commentator on infobox disputes and such an attitude is deeply problematic for the site if proposals to add infobox are largely motivated by wanting to wind others up, so what else am I to think? I'm not prepared to see this happen time and time again and Moxy grinning sadistically behind his computer screen when it kicks off. Rexx, it's reached a point that I no longer want to contribute articles like Kubrick and Sinatra because I have to deal with all the nonsense and trolling that comes with writing the big articles. You may support infoboxes, but these disputes create a massive problem for editors and the stability for the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come off it, Dr. Blofeld. There was nothing in Moxy's comments that indicated malicious intent, let alone anything like a "confession"—nothing more than frustrated off-the-cuff smartassery, and it wasn't even during any of the discussions. It's especially eyeroll-inducing when you use stuff like this as your "evidence" . Just cool off and withdraw this before the mood swings further into WP:BOOMERANG territory. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid I have to agree with Turkey on this one, Dr. Blofield. I've re-read the diff which you (selectively) quoted five times now, just to be certain, and I'm afraid that I feel that you are substantially misreading the substance of Moxy's comments, and drawing conclusions which are just not supported by any evidence. Let me be clear, that I absolutely assume that you are not doing this to consciously misrepresent Moxy. I think rather that you are just suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias with regard to your perspectives on someone on the other side of an issue on which you have been advocating on for a long time. Which, indeed is typical of all too many people on both sides of that particular debate--hence the fact that the rest of the community has had to take some radical steps in the past and is now considering doing so again. Nowhere in that diff does Moxy say that he is going to subvert process or troll anyone. He says that he expects that, because of the WP:Accessibility issues implicit in the infobox debate, that there will be an unending stream of new/IP editors who will continue to show up to argue with the anti-infobox crowd, and that those new editors may eventually wear down/soften the perspectives of some infobox skeptics. He doesn't say that he intends to take any actions to wear anyone down and he doesn't encourage anyone else to do so. In fact, he explicitly advises the IP he was addressing not to go overboard on the issue.

At most, Moxy said he enjoys watching some other editors spin their wheels (and I rather expect from the context and exact wording that he was speaking idiomatically rather than expressing actual mustache-twirling glee). Is it counter-productive / inconsistent with the spirit of collegiality for Moxy to express a sense of amusement here, even in jest? Yeah, surely. Is it a violation of any policy/community standard or anything worth exhausting community attention over at ANI? It's clearly not even within miles of that. Again, I have to agree with others who have already commented here, I think you should drop the stick on this one before you release the substantial potential of a WP:BOOMERANG.Snow ^{let's rap} 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban User:Cassianto from discussions of infoboxes

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

---

They do not appear to be contributing positively in this area. A couple of recent issues:

1) Invicity per "I don't know if you're meaning to be an insufferable little prick, or if you're just drunk or on drugs. Whatever it is, I suggest you go and have a lay down somewhere and decide which one it is." on Jan 2nd 2017

2) Closing discussions in which they are the primary person involved such as [70] and [71]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This thread is a classic tactic of someone trying to derail another thread by starting another. Yes, I did call the IP an "insufferable prick" as they were trolling and warring the Kubrick talk page and then socking everywhere else that I had been. Still, that's acceptable, isn't it. I see that Doc James didn't mention that in his post above. Funny that! And while we're here, and to mirror Doc James' well-oiled tactic, where is Doc James's admonishment for blocking SchroCat after SchroCat posted an innocent talk page message entitled "Coward" after the subject, Noel Coward. Further, what gives Doc James the right to alter my comments? Cassianto^Talk 07:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose While I'm not condoning the tone or language used, it appears that Moxy's foibles are being swept under the rug with the opposition of a topic ban for him, yet one is suggested for Cass. Moxy has admitted that the opposing editors will burn out in time and that after stirring the pot, watching the mayhem is fun. He's also made inferences that UK editors are not as well educated as those from the US and Canada.

To me this is a slur the same as saying that all people with dark skin are ignorant. Not understanding why it's OK for one person to engage in Civil POV pushing for fun and insult those not living in North America, but Cass' actions aren't acceptable, unless there's some favoritism being shown here. If one is wrong and should be topic banned, the same holds true for the other. We hope (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support for the same reasons I brought an amendment request to ArbCom involving Infoboxes as well as previous issues with Cassianto's Civility as brought to ANI. This is not the first time we have been here. It seems like Cassianto goes in and out of retirement to avoid admin action based on the prior ANI incidents. It's time we take action against the incivility. -- Dane ^talk 02:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I go "in and out of retirement" because of people like you. I fail to see what benefits you bring to this project at all. Cassianto^Talk 10:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

So Moxy's actions and comments are perfectly acceptable because they aren't about where you live and are favoring infoboxes but pitchforks and torches are needed for Cassianto? If the ARB requests had worked, perhaps we wouldn't be discussing any of this at present. We hope (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: I have not made any type of comment regarding Moxy's actions. My response is only regarding Cassianto based on Doc James' section which I noticed while monitoring my watchlist. I agree with you - if the Arb's had taken action, the discussion here would likely not be happening. -- Dane ^talk 03:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't favor zapping editors out of discussions. No vandalism, no banishment. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose one-sided, Moxy appears to be out to bait people, although it is hilarious that someone claiming to be "educated" would write something like Most likily becasuse there better educated, thus have a better ubderstanding of ... Pot, meet kettle. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless we are about to start zapping all the infobox warriors on both sides. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above, not impressed by the "Canadians stick up for Canadians" approach from Doc James either and refusal to accept that it is wrong for an editor to enjoy seeing conflict.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The way to stop Cassianto from boiling over is to stop baiting him. People unaware of the infobox background (which has been a running sore for years—see case) should not attempt quick fixes. The tactic used by pro-infobox people is drip-drip-drip with baiting. That should not be rewarded. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

How would people unaware of the infobox background know not to jump in and add one in good faith? Whenever this happens it should be a simple "ahem, please see the history." Instead what we're getting is "sad and desperate" and "delusional bullshit" and being told to "fuck off." Mr Ernie (talk) added this comment at 09:52, 4 January 2017.

They don't know, you're right, that's why I'm courteous to them when they first add an infobox. Diffs? The trouble comes when they don't like it and they then troll me and drama monger everywhere where they see fit. Believe me, I'm not at all liberal with my "fuck off"'s, and only use them when the occasion arises, and in particular, when they troll my talk page and then drag me here. I will not stand for angry IP's who sock their way about in order to get what they want, or people who refuse to come to a compromise based upon their own POV. The comments you quote above are steeped in background dressings; Mabbett has restrictions not add info boxes, and Ho has restrictions not to stir up trouble, so please do your research first. Oh, and Mr Ernie, please try and sign your comments. I know it's a bit embarrassing being attributed to them, but for someone who's been here for 10 years, you really should know better. Cassianto^Talk 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassed by what I write, and I don't appreciate that insinuation. It's quite sad to see an adult behave the way you do, but I can't say I'm surprised. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm a child. But hey, thanks for the slice of irony there; victim-crying for something I've said while in the same sentence, patronising me with something you've said. Are you a Canuck too? I only ask because if you are, then congratulations, you've just been ironic! If I've learnt anything over the past 36 hours it's that the Canadians don't understand irony. And as for being sad! Well, what's even more sad is someone whose been here for 10 years and who's not even managed to complete 800 edits. Imagine being embarrassed 800 times? Cassianto^Talk 18:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and respectfully request that Doc James withdraw his call for a topic ban. It's a bad look.--WaltCip (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems like a very odd thing to do during a discussion about a completely different editor. That said, Cassianto doesn't seem to be able to insert a filter between their brain and their keyboard, as evidenced above - but this proposal is just a piece of ill-timed provocation. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And, it appears,, you don't quite know when to shut up. I mean, I'd have stopped at the first edit rather than made another one. Why make two edits to be uncivil when you can make one? Pop over to my talk page and learn from an old pro ;) Cassianto^Talk 19:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

MusicLover650

@MuZemike: While I generally support a fairly hard line when it comes to articles created by banned or blocked users (23 entries at CSD), I'd like to know more about the circumstances associated with user:MusicLover650. I see evidence of evasion of the block but I haven't tracked down the rationale for the original block. (If it wasn't clear why am posting here rather than at the admin's talk page, on some rare occasions we have overridden the general rule that such articles should be simply deleted, but such a decision should be supported by a consensus of informed editors, so I'm raising the question here.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Page watcher here - from what I understand from the "Earflaps" section above, undisclosed paid editing seems to be the problem (though I have no idea where it was first documented). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that section, I had not read it and will now read.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did you ping MuZemike, who hasn't edited since November? Did you mean to ping Ramaksoud2000, who has nominated some of ML650's articles? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I pinged MuZemike who was the admin who blocked MusicLover650. I realize they haven't been active lately, but I still ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

List of almshouses in the United Kingdom

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

---

An IP user has been systematically removing wikilinks from the above article. I believe it is well-intentioned, at the same time an attempt was being made to sort the entries alphabetically; hence I have not raised this at AIV. Several different IPs have been used: 5.80.113.163, 5.80.114.82, 5.80.114.37 and a couple of others. Since a different IP is used each time it would appear pointless to use talk pages to feedback the problem. Could the page be semiprotected for a short while to combat the removal of the wikilinks please? Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Ask at WP:RFPP. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks.  Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Грищук ЮН

This editor has been endlessly adding unsourced material (mostly as bad machine translations from Russian) and WP:OR to all sorts of articles. They've had several warnings, including a level 4, but it keeps on coming. I could simply report this as vandalism, but something tells me that WP:ANI is the better place to fix this.

Here's one good example: in an article about a military ship, editor has added a long, rambling, unsourced, incomprehensible series of tangents on language, including an anecdote about a schoolboys' saying: [72], [73]

Here's another, in the same article about the ship, a long and unsourced analysis of a photo of one sailor: [74].

Have a browse through the edit history of Mignon desires her fatherland, and you'll find the editor tried again and again to add WP:OR, including a long poem in Russian about the editors' feelings on first seeing the painting (with machine translation to English alongside), endless unsourced tangential anecdotes, and so on. Editor seemed quite mystified that I and other editors kept removing it, and instead created their ideal presentation at User:Грищук ЮН/Draft, with all sorts of unsourced pet theories about Scheffer's real, hidden meaning in the painting.

User:HitroMilanese tried with admirable patience to explain to Грищук ЮН the problem of WP:OR at User talk:HitroMilanese#Jesus in a female guise and User talk:HitroMilanese#User:Грищук ЮН/Draft The friendly advice given there does not seem to be sinking in: Грищук ЮН still continually adds WP:OR to nearly every article they touch. Any advice on how to fix this problem would be welcome. Wikishovel (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: That's as maybe (I've been there myself!) but to say ' I could simply report this as vandalism'; no, you couldn't. Have you read WP:V? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 23:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: You have failed to inform the user under discussion as required so that they can particpate in this conversation about their edits. Please rectify at once, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox:: no, I informed the editor immediately after posting here: [75] Wikishovel (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that's weird. I did look, of course, but somehow it didn't show at the time and the last edit in the history was from last month. Caching issue or database lag I guess. Never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. But can anybody help me with this? I and others have warned the editor to level 4, but no reply at their talk page, and no reply here. What can I do next? Wikishovel (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid the user needs to be blocked per WP:COMPETENCE. However, I would say the first block should be of short duration, since they clearly make some good edits. Any thoughts?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:- below, sorry, forgot to ping. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As I hinted at above, I've been aware of this editor since March last year. In someways they're a perfect editor- no drama, over 8,000 mainspace contributions, clean block log, thirty articles created, and over 80% edit-summary usage. The elephant in the room, of course, is language. The articles aren't so bad- they just need a bit of tidying... like this. Having said all that, the 0.5% of his edits that are to user-talk are like this. The real problem is the inability to communicate on what is, of course the English Wikipedia. Their absence from this board is possibly explained by the fact that they either do not understand the notice or are not prepared to demonstrate their use of language her. Frankly, the editor needs- not so much a mentor- but a translator. And I'm not quite sure how that would be done even if we actually were able to find one! It would be desperately sad, though, to lose them as an editor; I just can't quite see how we can get around these flaws. It would be nice if we could though. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I can talk to them in Russian (assuming they speak Russian), but I am not prepared to do it on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I agree, and I think I said something of the sort- after all, if we get tied up like that, we are effectively halving our own output, and that's detrimental to the thing. Would it be possible perhaps for you to have a chat though? Explain, who you are, where they stand, how we can help but only if they help themselves, etc? You don't have to. But perhaps you could judge their attitude and general competency by the nature of their response. Would you be willling? This isn't an official proposal- as it's somewhat beyond your call of duty! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Left them a message; they state Russian is their mothertongue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Good afternoon, Dear Sirs! I see, you are discussing about me. Can be difference in our understanding the situation about my articles in the following:

1. I do not see original recearch in my article SS Metallurg Anosov and you see the original research. The same situation was about my articles of Soviet Ships, as from beginning somebody wrote that that articles are original research and the sources from Interned seamen's talk is not a sourse in doubt. I mentioned, that in doubt Soviet official sources and not semen's talk. I show that and found out some other sorces to confirm, that the semen said correct and Wikipedia was agree, that the my Ship's articles are not otiginal recearch. In the article SS Metallurg Anosov part of information is clear my iformation, which was not printed anywhere before. If on you opinion it is original research, you can delete.
2. I limited to write in this article more to confirm, as this article about the ship and I had write minimum.
3. To explain, I have write other articles, but I also limited by permition, what possible to write and what better do not write. It is why I wrote allitle and not too much.
4. Any way, if you deleted the part of text, which on your opinion is original research, I will not back it and will not write interesting articles about the Soviet Union. I can show you plenty articles in Russian and Ukranian Wikipedia, where plenty misunderstanding due to each country understand this as per their interests. For example and it is also can be as confirmation (I intended to write this articles also):
   1. Приказ о депортации украинцев в 1944 году and Таємний наказ про депортацію українців - here the photo of document, where mentined General Zhukov and Colonel Fyodorov. Zhukov, Andropov (Andropov-Fyodorov) and Andropov's father in low Fyodorov worked together during Karelian war in 1930-s also. It could be separate articles to describe why Rossia Wikipwdia does not agree with Ulranian Wikipedia and why each side can say that other side has original research. Who correct in this situation. I can confirm by my experiance that both sides are correct partly, but I have to write about my life to explain. I am Ukranian and I was not deported from Ukraine due to was used another original way, then "Order about deportation of Ukranian in 1944". Seem my experiance and my life can not be used as confirmation for you and English Wikipedia will not understand who is correct in this situation: Russian Wikipedia or Ukranian Wikipedia.
   2. Паткуль, Иоганн Рейнгольд and Йоганн Рейнгольд фон Паткуль - the difference is my part in Ukranian WIkipedia, which I took from source Д.І.Яворницький "Історія запорозьких козаків", том 3, Коментарі Г.Я.Сергієнка - this book wrote Dmytro Yavornytsky during Tsar Russia and this book was printed only one time during Tsar Russia and after was prohibited due to Tsat and after Soviet Union was not agree to confirm his information as his book confirm some history moments about Ukrain (in this articles directly about Peter I and Mazepa, where the writer describe why Mazepa was against the Peter I. This bool by Dmytro Yavornytsky was printed again in Ukrain in 1990-s after the Soviet Union colapse.

As you see each country Wikipedia can describe articles of other Wikipedias as "original research" and own articles as "correct information and correct sources". In my articles I confirm my infromation (my life) by other sources and it is not original research. Any way, if it is not interesting I will stop to write more and seems nobody will write it for English Wikipedia to understand situation and misunderstanding between RUssian and Ukranian, as each other Wikipedia (Rissian, for example) can cry to you that my inforormation is original research. I t was already one time, one year or one and half year ago about. Also every Soviet source needs to be checked and passed original recearch also as too much wrong information Soviet sources have. The same today, - each country writes own understanding of situation. It is means that we can sea in the most articles original research, if we want understnd it as original research. Thanks. Грищук ЮН (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Repeated recreation of autobiography

AW Bhai appears to be repeatedly recreating autobiographical content despite multiple speedy deletions and notifications on their talk page. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dealt with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Good call. He's created the page in the article space multiple times, then in his user space.

He has made some other contributions, but his first such at least [76] was also about himself. Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a new section on their talk page [77] offering to help them to avoid COI and autobiography issues in the future. Andrewa (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Canvasing for The People's Cube

Earlier today I AfD'd an article because it did not seem to meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. I only noticed this 9 year old article after searching for something unrelated off-Wiki, as I explained in my response to the user who accused me of being canvassed. Ironically it was due to a canvassing attempt by the subject of the article in question that I even ran across this article (it's a top-search under the #wikipedia hashtag currently.) Upon returning to Twitter moments ago, there is a new canvas attempt specifically asking editors to vote Keep at the AfD. [78] Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯—Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Let's see how that goes. So far it's relatively quiet. Risker, I see you've been active there as well; thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I was reviewing the article myself, looking for decent sources, and Chrissymad already had the AfD up and running well before I'd finished my research. I'm going to admit that a lot of the work I've done in the past couple of days (including reverts, revdels, page protections, and possibly even a block or two) has started out by looking at an article referred to on Twitter. Luckily I can read the stuff without having to create an account or log in. Risker (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Twitter...I think I've heard of that...isn't that the replacement for the old-fashioned press secretary, a mere mortal? Drmies (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
      • It is in fact, as the name suggests, an electronic meeting place for twits. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And now a third canvassing attempt... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

References

Messing with other's edits

2A1ZA (talk · contribs) The user was blocked twice in his less than five months stay in Wikipedia. The second one was for a week and ended on 26 December (a week ago). He came back now with a warrior mentality. He always had this mentality as his edits will show; they are just talk pages fights and edit wars...etc

• He now participated in a discussion and he allowed himself to change the title of the section which was created by another user. dif 1
• I restored the original title dif 2 and warned him dif 3
• Yet he didnt care and re-edited the title of the section dif 4

This is bad, he did it with me before when he shoved his comment in the middle of mine making it distorted but I didnt report back then. He have this habit of using Wikipedia as a forum and thinking he knows best. He even declare his own consensus on talk pages (which his last block case demonstrate perfectly).

Please, at least make him respect other users comments.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of either party's edits, the first thing I notice in that talk thread is that the IP user had included a personal attack both the section heading and in the following paragraph – unjustly accusing the other party of "vandalism", and you appeared to be colluding with them. That, if anything, is disruptive battleground mentality. 2A1ZA was right in redacting the heading, though the way he did it was not the best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It goes deeper Fut.Perf. 2A1ZA tried to eliminate this paragraph twice before here and here. Then the page was protected from IPs and put under the one revert rule (and IP 109 was one of the supporters of the paragraph). 2A1ZA took advantage of this to remove the section arbitrary even though he know that other editors dont agree. So, if him, without a discussion, removing a paragraph that was twice discussed and kept isnt a vandalism then what is ?.

Also, if calling that user a vandal is a personal attack, then a quick look at his edits will reveal that he calls anyone who doesnt agree with him a vandal. See here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:What vandalism is not. As long as 2A1ZA is making those edits because he, subjectively, actually likes the article better that way (i.e. isn't deliberately trying to make it worse), he isn't vandalising. He may be stubborn, misguided, tendentious or whathaveyou (just as the people who inserted the paragraph may have been stubborn, misguided, tendentious etc.), but he isn't vandalizing, and claiming that he is remains a blockable personal attack. Of course, the same goes in reverse too. All parties be warned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Good enough if it goes both sides.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I recently added a comment to the discussion at Talk:Rojava and because of the personal attacks of User:Attar-Aram syria I left a warning at User talk:Attar-Aram syria. I only afterwards found that some issues are discussed here. User:Attar-Aram syria deleted this warning with an appalling comment [79]. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems that user Attar-Aram syria is engaged in wp:Canvassing#Votestacking: [80], [81]. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the user as it was definitely canvassing. I have also warned them for the edit summary in the diff provided. Although, I am inclined to question who you are since you never edited before and may just stirring the pot even more. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been editing for some time as IP user. However, my IP address changes. But I took part in the discussion on Talk:Rojava (the section that is discussed here) from the beginning (see other, but similar IP) and have followed the discussion since then. I have no connection with the other users in that discussion. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wild IP, :Did you even read what canvassing is ! First, do not stalk me, okay ? Second: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus". We have no consensus here, so how am I trying to sway it ? Do you think that a generic IP like you have a strong voice to create a consensus? Third, both users I contacted have edited the page and participated in the discussions before, so, and according to the canvassing article, I am not picking them based on criteria "such as a userbox, or from user categorization".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, yes, you were canvassing. Your posts were not neutral and was giving away your position on the issue at hand. That is canvassing. It doesn't matter if they participated on discussions, it has to be neutral. Lastly, please stop personally attacking people. "Get a life" is uncivil, a personal attack and unnecessary. Stop it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Stalking my edits is uncivil. Do not give me commands, stop it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not stalking you. Please do not falsely accuse me. All I did was click on the diffs the IP gave. Also, I am not commanding you. I am warning you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I wasnt talking about you Callmemirela. I was talking about the IP stalking me. And, please leave the warnings to admins--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can warn anyone. It's not solely reserved for admins. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The statement "obviously a blocked old user" [82] is not true and seems to be a personal attack. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You participate through different generated IPs, you know your way very well, and you go just to support a problematic view in a problematic article. Please, tell me, how is it a personal attack to doubt you.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

To doubt is one thing, to write "obviously a blocked old user" is another thing. User Attar-Aram syria should know this. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to admins: I have decided to follow the advice of a friend. Im removing those pages from my watch list and stop giving those internet activists more of my time. BTW, every single Wiki article about political conflicts is infested with those warriors. Nothing is being done and nothing will be done against them.... too bad.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Odd edit summary

SeeTalk:Riemann hypothesis. In IPv6 editor used an obscene edit summary. This was on 20/12/2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.119.123 (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

ANAL SEX is hardly going to cause a riot or need revdel etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Some IP's can be a real pain in the arse, can't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well put. But this one seems to be intentional about that. Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, this seems to be a deliberately inappropriate edit summary by a vandalism-only IP. It's not that it's offensive to some, rather it's that an edit summary of Donald Duck would be as meaningful (not), and the pattern is such that it's a good guess that the attempt at offense is deliberate, testing the limits. Their edits to date have all been reverted [83] and included a block deletion of other editors' signed comments. [84] If this persists action should be taken. Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there's this as well, but all of that seems to have blown over. I never figured that the Riemann zeta function would lead someone to consider anal sex (in all caps!), but you know, the Lord moves in mysterious ways. At some point I suppose we could consider semi-protection, but let's hope the editor is finished. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You have clearly never dated a kinky mathematician. Reimann's work always leads to paving the ole dirt road. Don't even get me started on what happens when you start doing Lorentz transformations... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of the joke about a constipated mathematician...RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

My, what a big delta your scalar field has... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Did someone say Ream-Man hypothesis? Yuk, yuk! (On the odd chance any of you perverts haven't seen this: She became tensor and tensor...) EEng 21:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This particular pervert had not seen that. So thanks :D MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And for you computer scientists... [85] EEng 06:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've revdeleted the edit summary as disruptive material. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good call. While we should have regard for NOTCENSORED, nor do we want to become a showcase for toilet humour... not because of any POV against it, but just because it's a distraction that could easily grow if not discouraged effectively. Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • For your future reference WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm in trouble. EEng 05:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll visit you in gaol... would you like me to bake a file into the cake, or would you prefer a dildo? Andrewa (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

😳 Um, I think I'll just take the opportunity for some quiet contemplation and self-improvement. Thanks for asking though. EEng 06:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, not censored for "content". A random vulgar edit summary does not qualify as content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, very good point as was the more general one by BYK above. But I think the spirit of the policy is, we shouldn't revdel a contribution just because of a vulgar edit summary. The letter may not cover this but I don't think it needs to. We have better things to do, and to do so just risks feeding the trolls anyway. Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe you may have misunderstood NYB's comment above. I read it to say that he rev del'd the edt summary, not that he did anything to the edit itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did misunderstand... I confess I didn't realise revdel was quite that surgical (having never used or requested it myself).

And it's an excellent use of it. It seems to me to satisfy WP:CRD criterion #3 Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This might even be a good example to list on that page. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kov 93 and BLP violations

Kov 93 This user continues to add unsourced information into WP:BLP articles, despite being warned not to do so. For example this, this, this and most of their recent contributions. They seem to be an experienced editor (since 2008), but fail to acknowledge concerns on their talkpage. I'd appreciate some help with this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I dropped a note of caution on their talk page. If the problem persists let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hungary gives out awards for Kayak and Canoeists of the year annually? Is Hungary a particularly water-sport loving nation? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh yes--perennial contenders. Same in Slovakia, Czech. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Megavillain vandal (Rangeblock needed)

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/98.219.220.18/Archive

Some of the IPs involved:

• 98.219.220.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:482:1:A3B1:9D63:A6E9:AEA6:BA2A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:CDE6:A6C0:D401:DE2C:44EE:E620 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:CE10:18E0:1DD:C001:90D:ABEC (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:306:CE10:18E0:5057:77B1:ACD9:A779 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:545:4403:5D30:DC2F:C107:C28E:C32D (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:545:4403:5D30:1058:9680:55F3:8777 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:545:4403:5D30:F1CA:E7E8:2702:936E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:545:4401:A01E:98BC:DF3F:5336:AC1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:545:4401:A01E:8DC9:A3EA:2EC3:6389 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• And there's probably a lot more where that came from!

The report: I actually took this to SPI a while back, but they couldn't do anything because the user discards their IP addresses, with the exception of 98.219.220.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which is almost certainly a shared address). For over a year now, this user has essentially vandalised Wikipedia nonstop, with their primary M.O. being to blank information and change the words "superhero"/"supervillain" to "megahero"/"megavillain". They have been warned repeatedly to stop, but have refused to respond or do so. Not only that, but much of their vandalism will go days without even being detected (such as their recent disruption at List of Batman Family adversaries). For this reason, they are starting to become a genuine threat to the Wiki and I believe that there is a serious case for rangeblocks in this instance. DarkKnight2149 22:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This should be a trivial edit filter or Cluebot modification. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked the current IPv6 address, 2601:545:4403:5D30::/64, and the IPv4 address could have been blocked had they received any warnings about their disruption. The other IPv6 addresses are stale for blocking purposes. I suggest leaving some warnings on User talk:98.219.220.18 if they resume the same pattern of editing, then taking them to WP:AIV.

Also, as Acroterion points out, this is something that can be handled automatically if the block doesn't work. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

98.219.220.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) will be easy to keep an eye on. I left warnings on some of the most recent (at the time) IP addresses when I came across them. I didn't really pay attention to which specific IP ranges I warned, as it's obviously the same disruptive user. Regarding Acroterion's suggestion, an edit filter or Cluebot modification could be useful if this keeps happening. DarkKnight2149 17:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

When is it proper for someone else to delete material on an article's Talk page?

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

---

Under what circumstances is it proper to delete material added by someone else into an article's Talk page. I understanding is that there might be some very rare circumstances, but in most cases it would be improper. Comments? 67.5.233.63 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Without knowing anything more specific, I suggest that you refer to WP:TPO for reference. Basically, an editor should try and avoid editing/removing the talk page comments of others unless there is a very strong policy/guideline-based reason to make such an edit since such a thing can quickly lead to problems between editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd say adding comments speculating someone was at fault in a death, without strong evidence, counts as a WP:BLP violation which must be removed. Which is something you already know, since you've tried this before. See the history of Talk:2016 Hoboken train crash --Calton | Talk 07:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you are mischaracterizing things. The article that you are referring to has, for well over a month, contained a reference which strongly implies that the engineer was at fault in a train crash, and a death, with no evidence at all other than a lawyer's comment. Why is that not "a BLP violation which must be removed"? Be specific. It sounds like some such references are okay, but others are not. What is the difference? 67.5.233.63 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The material in the article is based upon citations to reliable sources, and includes only what has been verifiably reported in those reliable sources. Your talk page post includes no sources and no facts; rather, is a wholly-speculative personal attack on the engineer based upon nothing more than your own personal beliefs. Your personal beliefs about people do not get space on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

My observation of a contradiction stands: There is a currently implication that the engineer is somehow responsible for a train crash and death, and no evidence (other than a lawyer's sheer speculation about sleep apnea) is cited. Does such mere speculation merit space in WP, even though it is entirely without evidence? That would be a problem, except for a hidden motivation. And I haven't changed the article; I merely added a comment on the Talk page, which I am entitled to do. I am asking for an explanation of this obvious inconsistency, which you are unable to supply. I am glad to expose this hypocrisy. 67.5.233.63 (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're not "entitled" to do anything on Wikipedia. We are not a soapbox or a free speech platform — I'm happy to correct your apparent misconception of our mission. We are a project to write a free-content Internet-accessible encyclopedia based upon reliable sources, and your idle, unsourced, "what if this scenario I just made up in my mind out of whole cloth is true?" rambling has no part of writing a free-content Internet-accessible encyclopedia based upon reliable sources. So it was removed. And it will be removed again. And if you persist, you'll be blocked. I suggest that if you want an open anonymous discussion forum where you can speculate about basically anything all day long, Reddit is over there. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Above, Carlton claimed: "Well, I'd say adding comments speculating someone was at fault in a death, without strong evidence, counts as a WP:BLP violation which must be removed." Problem is, the current commentary actually naming the engineer, and his alleged case of "undiagnosed sleep apnea" constitute precisely a "comment speculating someone was at fault in a death". The fact that this was in a quote from a lawyer doesn't justify quoting it. As is easily seen, the problem with taking a seemingly authoritative position in WP is that you can be called to account for inconsistencies in the application of such a statement. As I am doing now. What, precisely, made it improper to name the engineer (prior to the NTSB report) before, yet now the lawyer's sheer speculation somehow is implicitly being used to justify naming that same engineer, also without the NTSB report being finalized and released. How much more obvious can this inconsistency be? 67.5.233.63 (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That he is named in the article is largely irrelevant. The BLP violation is not solely because you named them. There is a difference between referring to sources which involve speculation as to an undiagnosed medical condition as a cause of the accident (which is what the article does), and what you did which is paste your opinion the condition was known about by the engineer, his wife, and he willfully and dangerously operated heavy machinery in the knowledge he had a condition that risked lives. Which is a potentially libellous completely unproven speculation on your part. If you are unable to see the difference, say so now, and I will propose a topic ban from all BLP's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You said, "The BLP violation is not solely because you named them". You're confused. First, the current reference to the name of the engineer was entered over a month ago, is still there, and I didn't enter it, although I haven't specifically checked who. Second, you said "named THEM". I don't know who you mean by "them". It is also a "potentially libellous completely unproven speculation" on the part of the cited lawyer to the extent that he mentioned sleep apnea, no less than anything I have done so far. Above, and below, we find evidence of typical thuggish behavior on the part of WP editors who think they WP:OWN articles. Also, you are coming to a foolish legal conclusion that it is "libelous" to consider the possibility that the wife might have known about the engineer's sleep apnea. You're just pretending to know law. 67.5.233.63 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Calton beat me to it, but here's what I was typing. For those just tuning in, 67.5.233.63 is referring to Talk:2016 Hoboken train crash, where Malerooster reverted their previous comments as 174.25.28.202. Per BLP, consensus has generally been to avoid naming engineers involved in recent train crashes, especially before the full NTSB investigation (which generally takes 9-18 months). There's the potential for a lot of harm to be done by naming someone who may not have been at fault - or even tried to prevent an accident - as naming them often is taken as a presumption of guilt. What appears to be this same IP user (bouncing around various IPs in the Portland OR / Vancouver WA area) has previously made agressive edits and talk page comments, created multiple ANI threads that boomeranged (see here and the block for BLP violations on the article here), and generally been disruptive. Pinging Bishonen who dealt with this before. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I dealt with this before as well; Wikipedia pages are not places to speculate or lay blame, much less to serve as a platform for an anonymous user to soapbox and "shame" a living person involved in a tragic crash whose cause is under investigation and has not yet been determined. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You foolishly refer to "Wikipedia pages" as if there is no distinction between the article pages and Talk pages. There is a very good reason Talk pages exist, and must exist. Go back, apologize, and try to stop defending incompetent train-drivers. I see there's yet another incident, today, in Brooklyn. Are you going to defend that one, too? 67.5.233.63 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Talkpage semiprotected for a month. The OP has been amply answered already — thanks to everybody who has helped explain things to them. The IPs they have been using recently aren't unblockable, but range blocks might involve some collateral damage, so this time I've semiprotected the talkpage instead. That's not ideal either, but some measures have to be taken with this kind of BLP vios. (Attacking the wife and sticking your nose into people's bedrooms, seriously?) I'll just add to the IP, you'd get more respect if you created an account and took some responsibility for your editing instead of playing hide and seek. If you believe in your arguments, why don't you? Bishonen | talk 10:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

Excellent evidence of continued thuggish behavior on the part of Bishonen. Punish the messenger, block his message, ignore his objections, etc. This is being done to prevent people from raising the inconsistencies currently being inflicted on the relevant Talk page. This is yet another reason why WP has such a bad reputation for manipulation by administrators. 67.5.233.63 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Could | This be the same user under a different I.D ? If so, we might be looking at someone determined to push their point of view. KoshVorlon}User:KoshVorlon/Template:TimeStamp 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no doubt it's the same, User:KoshVorlon. That time I blocked their ranges for a week, this time I've tried semi. Yes, they're obviously determined to push their POV, but there's not much else we can do. You note their lack of interest in my suggestion that they create an account. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

• we might be looking at someone determined to push their point of view -- Ya think? EEng 21:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

South Beach Diet redux

In mid-December I filed this ANI case which got no traction here. It did stop the disruption at the article, briefly. Their history, the edit warring, and the content being edit warred over is described in that case.

Today Anmccaff re-appeared at the article and took up right where they left off, again deleting MEDRS-sourced content with an edit note that misrespresents the source, rolled back the restoration, and defended the use of rollback by calling the restoration "vandalism" on the talk page. Their justification there on the tall page is incompetent or tendentious; here on the talk page they present their interpretation of older primary sources as trumping a recent MEDRS source; they also brought a recent secondary source that does not discuss this diet but again with SYN attempted to make it relevant.

This person should not be editing about health in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2017

Jytdog appears to be claiming that a cite from 2016 is somehow older that a metastudy from 2014, citing a study from 2007. That's rather typical of his casual approach to chronology when writing about this topic. Anmccaff (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(UTC)

update: here on their Talk page they dared another editor to take them to ANI. Please put an end to this long term disruption. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Damn straight. Wikipedia should not be run by by threats of administrative action, tag teaming, tendentious source searchs, or any of the other [problems that pervade this page. Anmccaff (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• I looked into this the last time, but didn't get involved as the disruption died down before I could go through the source myself (I generally trust Jytdog to accurately represent MEDRS sources but as they say; trust but verify). However, I did eventually do just that, and so I'm willing to say here that the source unquestionably supports the statements and that Anmcaff's edit summary in this diff is a bald-faced lie. There is no amount of good faith which can let me read that edit summary as an honest mistake. Furthermore, I found a revert which this user performed and marked as minor. Absent this context one would presume it to be a mistake, but all things considered it's a mightly convenient mistake. That is disruptive behavior and should be stopped immediately. I would support a topic ban. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Strike that falsehood about "bald faced lies", please. The comment is sourced. The cite does not address long term cardiovascular effects of SB, and says so explicitly. Right on the second page, pretty prominently. • South Beach was only assessed in 1 long-term trial, which found no difference in weight loss versus usual care, and no data were reported on its effects on cardiovascular risk factor levels. Note that it does not suggest any problems with the diet, except that this study showed no difference from usual care - which is rather a different thing in post-bariatric surgery followup than in might be for a casual dieter. Note also that two paragraphs beyond it notes that the metastudy only looked for RCTs that mentioned particular diets by name, saying nothing about assessments named by objective description of the regimen. Anmccaff (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Finally, I believe this answers your other question: Does Twinkle treat rollback of vandalism as a minor edit? I do not see why it should, neccesarrily, but there's nothing "deceptive" about that, at least on my part. Restoring an inaccurate summation of a cite without substantive discussion certainly looks a good deal like vandalism.Anmccaff (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Strike that falsehood about "bald faced lies", please. No. I stand by it. You have changed how you characterized the study over time without demonstrating any evolving understanding of it, and your explanation above does not support your assertion. I think you may need to look up the Null hypothesis if you honestly believe it does. However, based on your comments about this issue here at ANI and elsewhere, I do not believe that you lack the necessary understanding to comprehend the difference between the implications of your argument and your edit summary. Furthermore, you've responded to meaningful complaints about marking your revert as minor by accusing well-meaning editors of vandalism, a blatantly untrue accusation. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No, nothing so complicated. A cite which does not support the general claim made -it does not claim that the named diets do not provide cardiovascular benefits, merely that they appear to be boringly modest, and, in the case of Atkins, two steps forward, on step back. It explicitly disavows any particular conclusions about SB in particular, since the study it was based on did not provide the data. It is not a useful cite for the purpose, and should not be edit warred back in.

No, I accused Alexbrn of vandalism before the mistaken Twinkle setting problem, and stand by it. Not the drive-by graffiti kind, but the tendentious editing kind. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're doubling down on a false, bad faith accusation. Gotcha. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No, not at all. I see his work on SB -amd several other related pages, as a distribution from Wikipedia, not a contribution to it. I see it as tendentiopus POV pushing, not at all unlike the trumped-up, so to speak, POV editing on Snopes. No bad faith involved. Anmccaff (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, content editing, including edit warring, is not vandalism. Ibadibam (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think every single example given there can, if taken to an extreme enough degree, be so, and I'd put repeatedly reverting to an unarguably inaccurate cite in that category. That said, If you'd prefer to describe it some other way, like "tag-teaming ownership", I don't think I'd argue. Anmccaff (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you wouldn't argue, then don't. Read Ibadibam's link to learn what is not vandalism, why calling editors vandals is a personal attack, and why being confused about what is and is not vandalism is harmful to the project. If you disagree with a contribution, fine, but calling everything you disagree with vandalism is inaccurate and damaging. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, point taken, somewhat; if nothing else, it's vague. Anmccaff (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

• Support topic ban for all diet topics. As MjolnirPants says this is plainly disruptive, and it's been going on for a long time now. The editor only seems to have been emboldened by ANI not acting last time. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(Add) just to note that from Anmccaff's additions above and from this edit[86], it seems there is a complete lack of repentance and strong indication this is only going to continue. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note I have dropped a strongly worded warning on their talk page. If this problem continues a block and or topic ban may have to be considered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• As mentioned above, I Support a topic ban. Ad Orientem, I respect your restraint, but in light of Anmccaff's response above, I strongly suspect a stern warning might not be enough. There are clear indications of a battleground mentality, here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban With respect to Ad Orientem, this is the second time Anmccaff has been brought to ANI for this in a couple of weeks, and their behavior hasn't changed since then. I think a "strongly worded warning" is going to do jack all. Anmccaff's battleground style of editing topics such as this diet does not add anything useful to Wikipedia, so they should be restricted from it. Valeince (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A report which led, rightly, to no action. As I mentioned above, Jytdog and Alexbrn have used threats of administrative action, repeatedly, to assert ownership over the subject. This was just another example of this. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support either a topic ban from all diet topics or an indefinite block. Considering the previous ANI and the user's actions and demeanour since then, I agree the time for warnings is past. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
• Oppose. I have been involved with all three of these editors on several different pages. While Anmccaff is certainly a difficult editor, banning him from all diet-related topics would be an overreaction. This particular clause has been contentious since it was added, and Alexbrn and Jytdog have taken turn reverting anyone who disagrees. I would encourage all three of them to stick to the WP:BRD cycle when editing, refrain from inflammatory edit summaries, and be civil on talk pages. Bradv 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Since when is a tag used to alert the readers? QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here, but inline tags like Template:Disputed inline are specifically designed to alert other editors to the existence of a discussion on the talk page, according to WP:AD. Bradv 01:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You previously wrote "The tag is alerting the reader to the above section."[87] That's not the purpose of using a tag. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What's it for then? Bradv 02:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – The editor's contributions are not limited to one topic area, nor are the patterns from which this ANI post arises. A topic ban will not accomplish anything here. Ibadibam (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. The point of a TBAN is not to prevent someone contributing everywhere, but only to restrict them from participating where they are continually disruptive -- See WP:TBAN. The diffs here and in the earlier filing show that Anmccaff is continually disruptive on the topic of diets.Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ibadibam, am I correct in reading into your comment that you would prefer a site ban? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. The editor is pretty consistent in their style from topic to topic. If a warning isn't sufficient, then a site ban is warranted. Ibadibam (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ibadibam Since that is the case, might I suggest changing your vote to "support"? My rationale being: at this juncture, a site ban is unlikely (it hasn't even been proposed). The previous ANI had no effect on the behavior, possibly because it imposed no sanctions. The more "oppose" !votes here, the less likely a topic ban is to be implemented. Assuming you are correct that the problem exists in other areas, then an existing topic ban for this exact behavior in this area will serve as compelling evidence in a future ANI about bad behavior in other areas. If that is not to your preference, then might I suggest proposing a site ban below? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: above you wrote "a topic ban is unlikely (it hasn't even been proposed)" but this section is titled "proposed topic ban". Did you mean something else? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I've corrected it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wellllll, I'm not sure I'd actually support a site ban at this time, given the escalatory way this dispute has been handled by the pair of editors who constitute Anmccaff's opposition (and subsequently elevated this to ANI). It's just that a topic ban isn't going to stop Anmccaff from being the headstrong editor that they are, site-wide. In this case, I might suggest probation and/or 0RR. Ibadibam (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Did an editor delete a MEDRS compliant systematic review? Wow! I support a topic ban from AN/I for any editor who supports any other editor deleting relevant MEDRS compliant systematic reviews from articles. QuackGuru (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if the MEDRS cite was used against its meaning? Wow. Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Blatantly tendentious editing and the user seems unwilling to acknowledge any possibility of being wrong. Guy (Help!) 01:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Blantant tendentiousness is certainly there, but if you see some on my part, it should be boringly simple for you describe to position you see being pushed. What would you think that to be? Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - I had been ignoring this thread, but after reading it, and looking into the contribs and the background, I have to support a topic ban from all health issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support The diffs and article talk show that the editor is pushing a favored line unduly. It has gone on too long. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support The diffs show a pretty clear disruptive mentality, but even going so far as to delete MEDRS systematic reviews seems to indicate the topic ban is definitely needed to prevent further disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I'm usually quiet on these sorts of matters, but the above example of deleting a systematic review seals the deal for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• OpposeComment - I'm not familiar with the full history of the dispute, but on a cursory review it appears that Anmccaff's complaint has merit, and the various tendentious editing is a frustrated response to being dismissed out of hand by other justifiably frustrated editors. I only have access to the summary of the study cited and its abstract, but rather than supporting the article's statement "The diet is promoted with claims it can improve cardiovascular health, but these claims have not been borne out by evidence", first of all the study did not analyze cardiovascular effects but only weight loss, and apparently since the review only identified a single study regarding South Beach that met their criteria, they simply stated no conclusion with respect to that diet, thus it does not support the assertion that "these [cardiovascular benefit] claims have not been borne out by evidence". None of this justifies the edit warring but it should be considered in context. I recommend these editors try dispute resolution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not very helpful to support a claim as having "merit" when you haven't read the source (which is freely available). If you had you would see it states quite plainly that this diet is promoted to aid cardiovascular risk factors; the authors state "We included RCTs that examined the effects of Atkins, SB, WW, and Zone [...] on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors with follow-up ≥4 weeks"; and in their conclusion they state "Our study was designed to examine the evidence currently available from the literature to examine the efficacy of 4 commercial, popular diets on weight loss and improving cardiovascular risk factors [..]" (all my bolds). So your statement that "the study did not analyze cardiovascular effects but only weight loss" is completely at odds with the source. The authors looked for evidence and there was none, hence the claims for SBD are not borne out by evidence, as we say. The reason why the weight loss element of this source is not included is because this aspect is already well covered in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I see the PDF of the study now, it was silly of me to have missed it before. In it it does state quite prominently (page 2 inset) that "the efficacy of popular commercial diets at achieving sustained weight loss and improving cardiovascular risk factors remains unclear" as well as "South Beach was only assessed in 1 long-term trial, which found no difference in weight loss versus usual care, and no data were reported on its effects on cardiovascular risk factor levels." (underline added) I admit I don't have time to read the entire study at the moment, but under conclusions it states nothing explicitly about South Beach, but offers "... available data are conflicting and insufficient to identify one popular diet as being more beneficial than the others." I feel that "not borne out by evidence" implies a negative, whereas the source is merely inconclusive with regard to cardiovascular outcomes of this particular diet, thus the article could better represent the source. Might I suggest, "... but these claims have yet to be studied" or something more reflective of the literature? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In light of this, are you considering changing your !vote? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: In evidence-based medicine the assumption is that something does not work unless there is evidence to the contrary, hence a fair presentation of this content in a lay encyclopedia is negative. In any case, this thread is not about content, but about the repeated long-term POV-pushing, WP:UNCIVIL behaviour and deletion of content by Anmccaff.Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No, at least twice. Were the cite to draw some conclusion, stating that a particular cite did not support the assertion would obviously be proper, but the cite specifically asserts that the the previous study it was based on did not record that particular data. Putting over something that does not investigate something as proving its failure is not acceptable.

What data that was recorded, however, showed all the diets to be efficacious, just not remarkably so, with the well-known exception of Atkins, which showed mixed results, for rather obvious reasons. It does not say they they failed, compared to usual treatment, but rather that they did the same, more or less...again, hardly a remarkable medical situation.

Finally, the study explicitly noted that it restricted itself to studies which explicitly cited diets by commercial name, rather than by regimen, which has it's own implications. Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't say it's been "proved to have failed" (as if that were possible) but that the claims made for the diet are not borne out by evidence. Which is exactly the case, as we know from out good source. Continuing to misrepresent the situation does not help your case. Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems fine, I wouldn't disagree with that outcome, but it did take a bit of discussion just now for me to get to the point of agreeing with you. Do you think it's a beneficial pattern to automatically accost every editor who attempts to intervene? (e.g. [88] [89] [90] [91]) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed. Anmccaff does not appear to understand (or care) that the sources they continually bring up are with regard to other fad diets, or broad discussions about loosely related health topics, and using those to imply conclusions about South Beach is synthesis and not allowed. Their stubborn refusal to get this point has repeatedly turned the article into a battleground, and while other editors are not blameless, removing the source of frustration ought to significantly improve the situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No, those would be side commentary on the equivocation used for "fad diet" by these two editors. Could you point out some example that looks otherwise to you? Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Unacceptable?

While making minor improvements to Meridian (Chinese medicine) today, I came under unexpected attack by User:Alexbrn and User:Jytdog, long-time editors by the way. Not sure whether details of my edits are relevant here (I removed a source inconsistent with WP:RS and rephrased a sentence in the lede), but my edit was WP:REVERTed by Alexbrn who accused me of "promoting fringe theories". While we were clarifying the matter, Jytdog stepped in and left me a threatening message,[92] (not sure why about sources as I added no text that can be sourced), undoing my further edits (and restoring undreliable sources).

I have spent years contributing to medicine-related articles (mostly to neurology and genetics) and I am fairly conversant with what "science" and "medicine" is. From time to time I also try to restore neutrality to articles I come across where I notice bias and proselitism (whatever the direction). Please see the changes that were reverted: my correction of attribution [93] (which is to a personal blog anyway) and replacing "belief" with "concept", the proper term in anthropology [94].

Why am I asking for intervention? Simply, if I am to keep contributing to this project, I would expect a bit of respect; not hitting "revert" on anything that's against the editor's belief; not threatening fellow editors with sanctions; and not throwing idiotic accusations at them. At least from long-standing editors.

However, this is my take on this, and I will be very helpful if you would share your view. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 18:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the comment left by Jytdog on your page wasn't quite helpful, but the edits you are making do support the accusation by Alexbrn that you are promoting fringe theories. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Promoting"? Is it about the word "concept"? "Concept", and not "belief", is used all over Yoga, Ayurveda, etc. I didn't know it is now promotional, very sorry. — kashmiri ^TALK 18:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• You can't expect your contributions not to be reverted out of "respect", especially when you make controversial edits and add content in a lede with a {{cn}} template added.[95] You forgot to mention you reverted the revert[96] - so beginning edit-warring. Finally you say I accused you of "promoting fringe theories" and put those words in quotation marks. Where are you quoting me from? I don't believe I wrote that - diff please! Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1. Yes, perhaps I should have removed the statement altogether instead of removing only the non-RS link. Because what does it mean "Meridian... has not been proven." by the way? Proven to function as described? Proven to exist? Proven to be an object of belief? But I now see nobody can touch the lede in any way without being attacked with warnings.

2. See your labelling of my edit as WP:PROFRINGE in your edit summary.[97]

3. If anything is controversial, then it is the article's reliance on non-RS compliant sources, like the personal blog quoted in the last section and labelled "evidence-based medicine". Shall we call it a "belief in personal blogs"? — kashmiri ^TALK 18:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Right so you now accept your edit was problematic, and it turns out I didn't "accuse" you using those words, but characterized the edit as WP:PROFRINGE in my ES, which is a bit different. Granted the article has problems, but this rush to WP:ANI on spurious grounds and the idea you should be revert-proof looks like a problem too. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• The OP is kind of icompetent to edit about health matters. They edit war, remove well-sourced content, add errors to articles, and leave unsourced content constantly:

• • adds or leaves unsourced content that is often promotional: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff (promo too), diff (adding content with a "cn" tag, oy), diff, diff, diff, diff,

PROMOTIONAL? Can you clarify what or whom I promoted? Naming the institution that is carrying out paryicular research is a promo? You must be kidding, or just doing anything to undermine my credibility. — kashmiri ^TALK 02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• • removing well-sourced content: diff and edit wars to remove it again here (same diff as one above)

"Well-sourced" to a personal blog or an anyonymous website. Great. We sure need more such "well-sourced" articles.— kashmiri ^TALK 02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• • made content too technical diff (see next edit that explains problems)

precision does not mean "technical". But why researching edits from years ago? Could find nothing newer? — kashmiri ^TALK 02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• • made content inaccurate: diff (changed "distributes to periphery" to "distributes to peripheral nerves" which is dead wrong)

Check out the meaning of peripheral nervous system, boy. Nusinersen does NOT distribute to other peripheral tissues than neurons (in case you did not know, being an ASO, it does not cross BBB - that's the reason for its intrathecal administration by the way). "Periphery", which you copied from the label, stands for "peripheral nervous system". You sure want to edit or comment on medicine-related articles? — kashmiri ^TALK 02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• • adds bad refs: diff (same diff as above), added primary sources that fail MEDRS

I can't believe you can dismiss an academic paper which summarised trial data, published in a respectable journal, as a "primary source" and "bad reference" - on top of that, a paper authored by several PI-s on that multicentre trial. One of two or three independent publications, i.e., authored by researchers other than Biogen's employees. — kashmiri ^TALK 02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• • ignores MEDMOS: diff (same diff as above), added dosing information which we don't do; see whole article version) before I brought it into compliance with MEDMOS in these diffs; OP was the creator and biggest contributor up to that point per the history.

I added frequency of administration, per patient leaflet, which is fixed and identical in all patients, and not drug dosage. You removed it, I guess you thought this might serve as a medical advice to someone. A normal editing process, although it would be more polite if you discussed your doubts.

Moreover, you added INCORRECT information on clinical trial results (no, the data quoted on the leaflet did NOT relate to all phenotypes, it was the data from only one of the two separate trials) and efficacy [98] (no, nusinersen can, and did, have zero or very mild efficacy in some patients - read your leaflet with more attention). You also added financial predictions - i.e., how much profit the drug will bring to the manufacturer [99] - all whilst WP is NOT a crystal ball or an investment handbook (why promoting Biogen anyway?).

See, all this discussion should have taken place on the Talk page and not here, I regret you refused to engage and summarily reverted when I asked you to slow down. — kashmiri ^TALK 02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The adding of unsourced OR to articles about health is especially damaging to WP.

Precisely that's the reason I questioned your edits, especially your unsubstantiated claims on efficacy of nusinersen. I removed them, but unfortunately you then hit the Revert button. Pity that you only see how much damage others do.— kashmiri ^TALK 02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Further, their jumping in to the Meridian (Chinese Medicine) article was very likely stalking/BATTLEGROUND, since they made their first edit to it (see their contribs to that article) at 14:44, 04 January 2017, after this message was left on my talk page at 04:17, 4 January 2017.

I am not looking for any kind of block or ban but this filing was not necessary and they should be warned to source content they add to WP and to follow MEDMOS/MEDRS when editing about health matters. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nusinersen - No discussion about the edits on article talk page.

Hear this, @Jytdog:? It must be about you as I usuccessfully tried to engage you in editing collaboratively (on your Talk page).

Talk:Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - No discussion about the edits on article talk page.

Was there, check the archives. Also, ever read WP:BOLD?

Talk:Spinal muscular atrophy - No discussion about the edits on article talk page.

How got? You sure are reading the same page? In my edition of Wikipedia, the majority of comments on that Talk are mine, with very few responses anyway.

Talk:Meridian (Chinese medicine) - No discussion about the edits on article talk page.

Average response time on that Talk seems to be well over 6 months, wasn't ready to wait that long and went BOLD. Is that a sin?

It seems like there might be a pattern here...of no one involved in this dispute discussing anything about these issues at all. TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. This filing was premature and we (including I) have not discussed these disputes at Talk pages. Please note that my disputes with Kashmiri were primarily at the Nusinersen article where I noticed the pattern of bad editing; I gathered the diffs above from looking at their contribs, to flesh out that it is indeed a pattern of poor editing. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether good editing or bad, Wikipedia requires users to collaborate on editing. Unfortunately, you refused to engage in any discussion. At the time when spinal muscular atrophy attracts particular attention of the media and patients, you destroyed consistency of the article, started live drafting, and saved unfinished draft versions with errors for hours. I politely proposed you to draft on the Talk page for discussion - but you refused. — kashmiri ^TALK 02:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Just want to add that my warning at Kashmiri's talk about about unsourced content (diff) mentioned above, followed this earlier warning I left there (diff) which they immediately removed. That in turn followed my pointing out unsourced content in various edit notes like this and this and others. That template:uw-unsourced3 warning was not out of the blue. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This looks a heck of a lot like trouts for one side for mistaking ANI for a talk page, and trouts for the other for templating an editor who's been here for 12 years, and mistaking it for discussion. TimothyJosephWood 20:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also suggest trouts for anyone who complains about an editor getting a template for behavior that clearly needed to be corrected (older account age should be even more reason for a template in such instances, not less), but I personally prefer catfish. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because a content dispute spreads across multiple articles doesn't make it not a content dispute. Being an experienced editor makes breaking basic rules more egregious, but it also heightens solidifies the expectation that you will engage in discussion before things escalate to the point where you are resorting to boiler plate templates. TimothyJosephWood 22:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly why Kashmiri's behavior was problematic here (again, the burden was on them to pursue discussion if they wanted their changes to stick). They essentially acted like a new editor (though not all new editors act poorly) by ignoring various rules we have. Since it's apparent they were either not aware of them or ignored them, that's exactly what the templates are there for regardless of account age. Sometimes even an only slightly-less-than-sagely editor still needs to be reminded of policies and guidelines when they slip up. Even the WP:DTTR#AGF essay cautions against an absolute mentality of not using templates on regulars because sometimes even regulars don't act like experienced users. It almost always looks there's a petty underlying squabble and missing the point going on when someone complains about a template being used. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

DTTR is an essay; WP:CON is a policy, and consensus doesn't happen without discussion. Discussion is not requested; it is required, and templating does not constitute discussion. It is not the presence of templates, but the absence of discussion that is the problem. TimothyJosephWood 00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually pointed out DTTR was only an essay because you were pushing that using the template was somehow problematic. Your posts are oddly sniping at those who were attempting in a pretty standard fashion to deal with Kashmiri's behavior and lack of discussion. It's sometimes common for editors prone to edit wars to skip talk page discussion after getting feedback in initial edit summaries, so it's silly to accuse editors dealing with that because they have nothing to respond to on the talk page in the first place; they wouldn't know what Kashimiri's problem with a particular revert/edit summary would be or if there were even follow-up problems in the first place until they got a response on the talk page.

When someone gets initially reverted, the person reverting usually gives reasoning in the edit summary. If the original editor (e.g., Kashmiri) wasn't ready to let the reverted edit go or the edit summary wasn't enough to resolve the issue, it would be up to them to transition the discussion to the talk page from initial edit summaries as the other editors already responded. That's how discussion progresses from an original edit that's later disputed in terms of WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy. I (and most editors) sure don't immediately post to the talk page every time one of us revert because either the edit summary is expected to be clear enough to resolve the issue or the editor will bring up follow-up issues on the talk page. Right now, you're trying to fault someone for taking one step in the initial discussion while Kashmiri failed to take the next. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Close? I don't see anything for admins to do here as long as Kashmiri learns how to use the talk page when their edits don't stick (i.e., WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN) while using sources. If this had been more of a long-term ongoing problem, this would be a good candidate for a WP:BOOMERANG, but it looks like this at least rises into warning territory for now for Kashmiri instigating edit wars and adding unsourced content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also add that at least some of the "unsourced content" appears to be content in the lead, which probably doesn't need further explanation here. TimothyJosephWood 22:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure per LEAD no refs are needed in the lead. But the content must be sourced in the body, and in these cases it wasn't. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Close lest we continue to fight a rhetorical war over who is more wrong in a situation where no one is right. TimothyJosephWood 01:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Apologies, had to step out for a few hours. I think what Jytdog did above requires more than a trout: taking out my unrelated edits, some from years ago, and suddenly complaining that they were "too technical", etc., sounds like a WP:BOOMERANG. Still, I am adding comments above. — kashmiri ^TALK 02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As I have suggested on their talk, Kashmiri needs to undo their confusing-comments-within-comments edits, something they should already know not to do, and instead make a separate reply, if necessary. TimothyJosephWood 03:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Threatening behavior

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

---

BilCat is bullying me and other IP editors. Please investigate this concern. Please consider issuing a gentle admonishment that the obvious predudice against non-registered users cannot persist, is against wikipedia policy, and that legitimate improvements and attempted improvements in the article text cannot be immediately reverted with edit summaries that amount to no actual explanation at all. 167.88.81.122 (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As opposed to edit summaries that say "just not interested in a wikipedia arse fucking dialectical nosh bashing with some pseudo-elite pompous fucktard so will leave the article and the talk page just as sucky as it was before I started" and "fucik off turd aszs". In other words, you might want to close this now before the boomerang hits you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• You'll have to give specific examples of the problem you perceive, 167.xx. I checked the first page of Bilcat's contributions (=the 50 latest), which contained six warnings to IPs, all of them highly proper. I'm afraid you can't expect admins to dig any further at random in the contributions of a very diligent editor. Checking the first 50 was already going the extra mile, IMO, in view of your own behavior as outlined by RickinBaltimore. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

This was apparently because of a warning issued to an IP user for this edit. It appeared to be vandalism to me, given that the IP was warned by @Materialscientist: for these edits. That IP subsequently made these brilliant edits. Given all this, I believe the "Hitler's buzzsaw comment was not in good faith, and the user deserved the warning.

As to the OP IP's own behavior, their edit summaries on Turks and Caicos Islands, along with similar edit summaries by other IPs in the same article, and on several other articles, are cause for concern. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A look at the IP's edits, making totally meaningless minor edits just to be able to spew out edit summaries like "hello wikipedia punctuation isnt your strong point, do you have a strong point? why do I see these pathetic monetary appeals whenever I cruise by?? yuck" on Turks and Caicos Islands shows that it's just a troll, and should be treated like obvious trolls usually are, i.e. by being blocked and ignored. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as I commented here I'd be "involved", but if another admin sees fit I wouldn't object to that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, BilCat's derogation of IP editors is not "highly proper". I suggest that checking 50 edits in such a short time shows that you are not giving BilCat's accusations on IP Talk pages of vandalistic edits the attention they deserve. It seems to me that multiple reversions in the last 50 are questionnable. Did you even take more than an instant to properly look at, for example, the Talk page template BilCat put on the IP user Talk page for the edit made to MG42, and did you cross-correlate that accusation of vandalism with the actual edit, and did you do any searching as to whether legitimate sources use the nickname the IP drew attention to? I suspect not, or you would not argue that the IP should have received a warning threatening their access be cut off. Nor should I receive a threat of access cut off. This is bullying behaviour and it's not OK. I am not a troll. That's a simplistic ad hominem. All of my edits have pointed out errors in article text. Some of these are so basic as to defy belief. But even with 3 edits to the Afc/NPP piece that quite obviously correct grammar and misspelling, BilCat reverted my the edits. Despite the objective situation, your collective opinion seems to be that reversions merely marked as reversions but not actually explaining the reversion, and which actually incorrectly reintroduce grammar and spelling mistakes, are OK edit summaries. That speaks to the superficiality of your analysis as it seems to me that the reversions are objectively working against improvements that were made. It seems to me that telling that IP editor that this was vandalism when the nickname is in fact used by e.g. National Geographic is being unduly harsh. But here Wikipedia goes again, self-grooming itself with dialectical nosh bashing pseudo-elite pompous rubbish, completely missing the behavioural quirk of its established walled-garden members,in my humble opinion. Of course, I could be completely wrong, and labelling the IP edit as vandalistic is in fact just 100% correct. Go ahead and attack me, that's all you are doing, right? You aren't actually looking at yourselves whatsoever, and it's clear that you have not looked at this request properly. You are all far too fond of "the Boomerang - label the person a troll, don't do any self-analysis, don't look at the actual complaint, cut the "troublemaker" off. That's not a fair or proper response. 167.88.81.122 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am going to gently suggest that you climb down off your soapbox and stop playing the martyr. It doesn't go over well with this audience. If you have complaints we need evidence. Post diffs with brief explanations. And speaking of brief, we don't get paid by the word here. If you can say it in a sentence (or less) don't write a wall of text. See also WP:TLDR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to know what previous interactions the IP has had with BilCat, as other IPs or as an account, because this is IMHO not based on something that has happened recently, and the IP has obviously been here before. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• I wasn't fast enough, being beaten by the IMO too hasty close, but I would like to suggest that someone takes a look at both the OP and Special:Contributions/209.94.182.99, their geolocation differs (one in Florida and the other in Wisconsin, the one in Wisconsin could be acting as a proxy, though...), but both the articles targeted, their edit summaries and their general behaviour is the same... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If you think there is something to be gained feel free to re-open the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

After looking over the IPs, I'm convinced they're the same user. I tend not to get too hung up on how a user seems to exist in multiple locations. Though on that note, I the 209 address is listed by many spam-tracking websites as a source of bulk spam, so it seems a likely proxy address. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• That turned out to be interesting. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram/Sander.v.Ginkel follow-up

I know strictly speaking, this doesn't require an admin's attention, but I know a lot of people made comment on this discussion. For info, there's now this discussion to move things forward. I'll drop a note on Fram and Sander's talkpages too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this would have done better at Administrators noticeboard instead of here at an/i, since it's basically a notice and nothing more. Eric Ramus Ground me here 19:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to post it there too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for review of my admin action regarding Monique Alexander

Pursuant to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#‎2017 AVN Hall of Fame inductees, I restored Monique Alexander on the basis that the subject being inducted into the Hall of Fame for their field, combined with an unusually high level of previous coverage from outside their field, makes this a fairly obvious case. The title hasn't been salted, and the article could therefore be created anew based on the subject's current state of notability. I would have taken the same action if a request had been made at WP:RFU, as was contemplated in that discussion. An editor has objected to my undeletion of the page, and I would like to know if I have overstepped here. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In general, I tend to be fairly deletion, but I think this meets the criteria. I remember a film she starred in, Play Time, being shown on UK mainstream terrestrial Channel 5, although admittedly that was back in the days when the channel's philosophy was "football, films and f**king", although the latter was always tasteful(?) soft core Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an urgent ANI matter? Can't you just have asked a fellow admin for a second opinion? EEng 17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to do that without being accused of cherrypicking the fellow admin you ask. bd2412 T 17:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This board is way, way to crowded with minor stuff. If the complainer wants to take it to some appeal, let them. EEng 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Plus I think WP:AN would have been the better place. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're fine. WP:DRV is not appropriate for this process as no one is saying that discussion was improperly closed. This is a recreation of an article, informally asked for by Wikiuser20102011, who brought up new content and sources, potentially satisfying notability concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• As a non-admin looking at this, I think the complaining editor's signature is the most improper thing going on (and that's borderline), while simultaneously providing a ready possible explanation for the complaints (once the arguments on the OP's talk page are taken into account: before that point we must presume the complaints are earnest). I'm not saying this was disputed over a grudge, mind. I'm just saying that's a possibility, considering the circumstances and arguments. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Nah, you're fine. You're absolutely right that any editor could have independently recreated the article with new information that brings the subject up to GNG, at which point it would likely be necessary to do a messy history merge; you just saved the trouble by restoring the history first. I suppose it might have been better to restore as a draft to let the editors add the relevant info and then resubmit as a new article, but that seems needlessly academic considering the editors making the request are not newbies. And bringing it here when your action was challenged is also the right thing to do (maybe AN is better but no matter, this board is not "too crowded" to deal with simple administrative matters). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Spaming a POV over Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#Merge into List of state leaders in the 21st century

I see that User:Bogdan Uleia is currently spamming many individual user talk pages with his biased POV of the disagreement at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#Merge into List of state leaders in the 21st century. This includes calling my actions abusive with I consider an unwarrented and personal attack.

It may only call for a warning but I am not sure what to do to prevent such thing from happening again. Thank you. tahc ^chat 19:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, you are wrong at the beginning. The articles refer to Lists of state leaders by years not by centuries. If you want to write articles about lists by centuries, is your right but open a separate list. If you don’t know, such lists is redundant because they are some specialized sites as www.rulers.org or www.worldstatesmen.org/ which are better as an wiki article, But it is your option. If you want to make a link between your article and the articles linked to years, you cam use section “See also” and they are no problem. Concerning the maintenance, if that is too hard to you, way you begin to wrote a such article?. Secondly, you have no right to redirect and destroy articles written by others persons without a consensus. Yes, a consensus, because no one is able to detain absolute truth. It is no me only, but some other persons consider it is necessary to exist a consensus to do it. On the other hand they are more others redundant articles (List of current presidents List of current prime ministers, List of current sovereign monarchs, etc) and no one redirected an destroy them. They are two similar lists List of current dependent territory leaders and List of leaders of dependent territories but, in order to unify them, not to redirect was opened a discussion. No one decides himself. I think you have the impression you and only you detain the truth and , in this sense you can do any thing you want to do, however you destroy the work of others. That it is an abuse. I informed all the contributors, in order to knew in what way is treated their work. And, by the way, way are redirected only the articles about the years 2016 and 2017?

Bogdan Uleia (talk)

Articles created by proxy?

I noticed that Margaretver and Inimfon made very similar edits[100][101] to Inonotus obliquus, that their editing also over overlapped on the topic of Akwa Ibom State and that one of Inimfon's articles - Richard Zoumalan looks like the result of paid editing. I therefore asked Margaretver about socking and paid editing.[102]

Margaretver replied[103] that these accounts were not socks but that articles they created were the result of submissions to a web site, and that "Most of the pages i've created are from my mails i receive per submission". So far as I can see the Margaretver account has only created one article, Akwa Ibom State Governor, so I'm not sure what the others (implied by "most of") are or which account created them.

This seems problematic/irregular - could somebody take a look and suggest a course of action? Alexbrn (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Please when i meant "Most of" i meant edits and page(s) created. Recently i started a WikiProject and i believe during the process i have created pages,categories and templates. Margaretver (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Here's the link for content submission and every now and then we do Sponsored Ads on Facebook and Instagram to help promote the page in some targeted regions a Margaretver (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"we do Sponsored Ads": who are "we", Margaretver? -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The first edit cited above by Alexbrn is this one by Margaretver. In it, Margaretver provides for the preexisting assertion

Though, according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, "no clinical trials have been conducted to assess chaga's safety and efficacy for disease prevention or for the treatment of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes".

an additional source, viz:

{{Cite news|url=https://chichaga.com/chaga-mushrooms-a-cure-for-all-and-everything/|title=Are Chaga mushrooms a cure for all and everything?|date=2016-10-05|newspaper=CHI CHAGA|language=en-US|access-date=2017-01-05}}

and as an edit summary for this, writes:

added refs to medicinal research

I must confess that I haven't read the page to which Margaretver links: it's prohibitively prolix and badly written. What do I mean? Well, its first sentence [?] reads:

Deviating for a moment to the Botanic fact that Mushrooms, in general, are developing higher contents and more complex healing substances than other medical plants.

So it starts by "deviating", has no main clause, has a bizarre use of the progressive in its subordinate (and only) clause, and has the capitalization of a twelve-year-old.

But a couple of reality checks. First, the string "Sloan" doesn't appear anywhere in the page; therefore, its reliability aside, this is not the source Margaretver presents it as.

Secondly, this is not "medicinal research", it's merely a page from some website hawking fungus products -- and hawking them to the kind of people who'd bother to read a page wondering whether such-and-such was "a cure for all and everything". (Tip: We won't know that anything is so till we have the first set of 130-year-olds who can credibly attribute their avoidance of death to its ingestion.)

I'm aware that I may seem "bitey" toward a new editor, but this is one who's already using HotCat and Twinkle and so I think we can expect competence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hoary: When i say "WE" am talking about the 2 people in my department assigned to expand or add contents submitted via that page, both Nigeria related and non Nigeria related. I sincerely had no bad intentions when adding the link, neither did it occur to me it was spam or might be spam. Since the link seemed to be referring to "Chaga Mushroom" as is the significance of the page i added the link. That was a big oversight on my part and i apologize. .... added at 00:28, 6 January 2017 by Margaretver

So to clarify: there is a department (of a company, "Premium Herald"?) with two people who are taking content they receive from third parties and transferring it onto Wikipedia? Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: A department setup to add mostly Nigeria related contents which might may meet notability guideline. Margaretver (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment FFS, read the link. They ask for material to submit to wikipedia from anyone. They reject promotional material, spam, and unverifiable material. There is no paid editing. Internet.org just launched a free internet service in Nigeria with a partner. Wikipedia is one of the free websites to access. The official language of Nigeria is English. Consider where many of these people will come. This witch hunt needs to be dropped. What Margaretver and the premium herald are doing should be applauded. Are there issues? Certainly but they joined under 30 days ago. I am aware that so many of us take wikipedia and the internet for granted but in Nigeria, where in 2012 32% of the population had access to the internet and wikipedia, this has the potential to be a major educational tool as more people in Nigeria gain access to the internet. They want to create high quality articles with the utmost ethical standards set by wikipedia. So instead of tying a boulder to them and throwing them in the pond to see if they drown and prove they aren't a witch, help them out. They are here. They are willing to discuss. They wanna learn. They want to do right. While we represent American, United Kingdom, Australian, and New Zealand interests, we also represent the interests of the English speaking world. Nigeria is slowly joining us. This whole thing is bitey and it is piss poor form. CIR my ass. Hotcat isn't that complicated to figure out and it's also not hard to figure out that Margaretver has a target audience, Nigerians. They have been here for less then 30 days. Instead of banning them why not reach out and try to help them. Without the use of a robotic script. There's the tea house, adopt a user, and what else is there to assist a new user in acclimating to Wikipedia competently? We could do something crazy like give them the links and explain what they are. Any random admins that notice they opted for piss poor sourcing might offer to assist them with understanding sourcing standards. It's not as if they can't be banned later if attempting to actually help them proves fruitless. Actually attempting to help them first rally seems like the right thing to do.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

TLDR Close this bullshit and help them or clearly point to where they can get help because they are not doing anything wrong and they are trying to do great and beneficial things.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Supersonic jet troll

There has been a recent issue with an editor behind an IPv6 range making mass edits. This is what they're mainly doing, and their behavior has gotten many articles semi-protected in the process... As of recently, they're trolling an admin's talkpage, here and here.

Unfortunately, 2600:1002::/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) would be the only possible rangeblock (see the last two IP's that I've listed above), which is very wide. If any admin feels comfortable performing that kind of block, then it may be need to be done in order to prevent further disruption. Thanks. 172.58.40.158 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

See the chart below, not the correct range...

Actually, my rangecalc suggests that 2600:1002:b100:0:0:0:0:0/42 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) can (probably) handle it. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 01:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Voidwalker: Just curious, but which calculator do you use to calculate that? I just said /32 because I know that typically IPv6 rangeblocks are either /32, /48, or /64, didn't know that there were others in between... 172.58.40.158 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The tool I use is built into a private interface. I'm not actually sure what the equivalent is. However, {{rangecalc}} seems to work similarly. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 02:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, these are all of the IP addresses that I have found: 172.58.40.150 (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
4M /64	4M /64	14	2600:1002:b100::/42	contribs
3M /64	2M /64	7	2600:1002:b100::/43	contribs
	1M /64	7	2600:1002:b120::/44	contribs
2M /64	512K /64	3	2600:1002:b100::/45	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b10f:13cd:8cf5:c936:d241:853d	contribs
	512K /64	2	2600:1002:b110::/45	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b11a:a4d2:1be:3ed1:1383:3ab2	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b121:a8e2:d545:51c8:6f77:9202	contribs
	256K /64	3	2600:1002:b124::/46	contribs
	256K /64	2	2600:1002:b128::/46	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b12e:a668:34e4:215e:c4ee:dec2	contribs
320K /64	256K /64	2	2600:1002:b100::/46	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b106:9b74:bd88:b71d:5f27:e326	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b10f:13cd:8cf5:c936:d241:853d	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b112:da68:7926:54b2:c0bf:1a83	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b117:b1ab:8d29:99c5:f988:289e	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b11a:a4d2:1be:3ed1:1383:3ab2	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b121:a8e2:d545:51c8:6f77:9202	contribs
	65536 /64	2	2600:1002:b125::/48	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b127:828d:78ae:2a6f:912d:deb4	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b128:3b4a:50b9:ecc6:8a5b:4c5c	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b12a:b301:4014:afe9:8dbe:ef99	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b12e:a668:34e4:215e:c4ee:dec2	contribs
14	1	1	2600:1002:b101:4f20:9430:80d5:a478:41ee	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b102:cf0b:a46c:9266:9db3:126d	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b106:9b74:bd88:b71d:5f27:e326	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b10f:13cd:8cf5:c936:d241:853d	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b112:da68:7926:54b2:c0bf:1a83	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b117:b1ab:8d29:99c5:f988:289e	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b11a:a4d2:1be:3ed1:1383:3ab2	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b121:a8e2:d545:51c8:6f77:9202	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b125:4c24:9834:817:7ab6:a83f	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b125:e5d4:c0a5:89ad:a61:568f	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b127:828d:78ae:2a6f:912d:deb4	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b128:3b4a:50b9:ecc6:8a5b:4c5c	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b12a:b301:4014:afe9:8dbe:ef99	contribs
	1	1	2600:1002:b12e:a668:34e4:215e:c4ee:dec2	contribs

Given that it's a pretty wide range and the vandalism is so specialized, maybe an edit filter would be better? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Yes, I believe an edit filter would be a much better way to solve the problem. Also, pinging Samtar and MusikAnimal, as they may be able to take a good look at this (and possibly create an edit filter). 2601:1C0:101:4626:159C:184A:6A69:7B89 (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Working on this at Special:AbuseFilter/821 — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport

An anonymous user removed the word "international" from the article. I have warned him to stop that but it seems he does not care. I need the admin to help in this issue before this leads to an edit war. Cheers. CWJakarta (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Both of the edit warriors are over at AN3 and the page is listed for SEMI protection. Boomerang incoming.--Adam in MO Talk 03:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted to the stable version before the edit war and highly recommend that both editors discuss the matter on the article's talk page before making any further changes. However, I must emphasize to 202.67.39.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that you must explain why an official name is wrong instead of declaring it as such. —Farix (t | c) 14:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Have requested page protection as the editor is now switching IPs to continue their edit war and refuse to discuss the matter on the talk page. —Farix (t | c) 16:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple inappropriate non-admin closures by User:AKS.9955

Several multiple-editor, longterm and ongoing discussions have been raised with User:AKS.9955 since OctoberJune 2016, despite that, he still continues to ignore Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures point #2.

• diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AKS.9955&diff=prev&oldid=758304901
• diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AKS.9955&diff=prev&oldid=758276535

User:AKS.9955 just non-admin-closed controversial Kingsley C. Dassanaike AFTER having been warned about the consequences of his actions here, here, here, here, here and here. Years ago I had my rollback taken away, don't much miss it, but it sets me to thinking, can someone have non-admin closure rights taken away? If ever there was a candidate, User:AKS.9955 is the poster child. A trout will not make the message stick at this point.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• That would be a topic ban. The criticism to his response to the criticism at DRV followed by closing a relist that had no further comments makes me think this might be the way to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• AKS seems to be trying to declare Bronze Wolf winners automatically notable by fiat, and I do not agree with that at all. These AfDs have been largely dominated by scouting enthusiasts, and it's well known that Wikiprojects often try to drive notability requirements for their topic right down into the basement. Also have to say that I'm uneasy about OP contacting only the DRV participants who criticised the non-admin close. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Reyk I contacted everyone involved in the DRV, what are you talking about? There's no "Scout-wing cabal" going on here, I'd rather put the issue to the test openly.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not so, you skipped Lankiveil for instance. Reyk _YO! 09:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisa Jordana (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Barr-Kumar (2nd nomination) are both examples of AFD discussions that AKS.9955 closed as "keep", when in my opinion it would have been better to have closed them as "no consensus". Does a lack of consensus make them a "close call" or "controversial"? I suspect that it does.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There is already a DRV for that article.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, we know that. This is an ANI to curtail the behavior.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not that often really. To be 'no consensus' means that there was no real winner in either votes or strength of argument. A lack of consensus is easy to spot. Its harder to judge a consensus when you have a stronger arguments on one side. As a no consensus and a keep at deletion discussions are the same result, its not a huge reason to overturn it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

RE Elisa Jordana - the strongest argument there was from Kaisa who voted keep based on her individual accomplishments, while being minor in themselves, scraping into notability. The difficulty with people who write *for* reliable sources is that they often dont have reliable sources who write *about* them.

The second was *obviously* a keep. Being nominated anonymously via OTRS and filled with IP meatpuppets. Apart from Tiptoe, that AFD was entirely suspect. Even the nomination itself was filled with opinionated accusations of wikipedia editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Speaking to what I've been involved in:

1. The user's closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie R. Mitchell was inappropriate, not because the arguments for and against were particularly close, but because it was a protracted debate with very different rationales for keeping, and ones which have potential effects on other articles. It was therefore outside of the realm of uncontroversial closures required of an NAC.
2. Their response when two experienced users questioned the close, which was to blank the conversation on their talk page was more so.
3. Their response at DRV was more so, and showed either an inability or a complete unwillingness to consider the arguments made as anything other than a personal attack. For a touch of irony, their assertion that Timothyjosephwood is simply lying when he said that he discussed with me; no he did not., which actually is a personal attack, is at best a willful misrepresentation. There was no discussion...because they blanked the thread.
4. Their decision to close nearly the same AfD with nearly the same rationale shows a complete and utter lack of judgement. They are completely involved that that point, even while their previous identical close was still open at DRV. They should not have closed that discussion even if it were 100 to 0 speedy keep. That they don't seem to understand that means they probably don't need to be closing discussions.

Having said all that about the current situation, and without comment as to previous inappropriate closures ([104], [105], [106], [107]), I support a time limited topic ban from closing AfD discussions. Making mistakes and misinterpreting policy/guidelines is not a high crime. Editors do it all the time. That's what discussion is for. But a complete unwillingness to consider that you may have made a mistake, a preference to continue the same behavior even while under community review, and a willingness to drag the community through both DRV an ANI rather than quietly defer to an admin when issue is raised (even if you are right and even if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety), make the user's contributions a net negative for the project in this area at this time. They can come back after a while and demonstrate that they can do better. TimothyJosephWood 11:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Leslie Mitchell AFD was never going to be closed other than keep. We have an article on the award they recieve and the keep voters cited ANYBIO. As the major oppose was 'getting that award doesnt make you notable' which is a *terrible* argument given there is no way you could AFD the wolf award, it is unsurprising it was a clear keep with both the number and quality of arguments on the keep side. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether it is clear keep is irrelevant to the fact that a closing rationale of Winner of Bronze Wolf Award award, making him notable. has no basis whatsoever in policy. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANYBIO section 1 is directly relevant to awards. He could have worded it 'Keep voters have stated subject has received a well known and significant award and oppose voters have failed to refute this' but at that point you are just quibbling over wording. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And meeting ANYBIO 1 is meaningless if the individual in question does not also meet GNG, and the only significant coverage of them is passing mention of the award, which itself cannot be assumed to confer notability. TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And regardless making an inappropriate NAC is inappropriate even if the call was correct. Making an involved NAC is still involved even if the call was correct, which is the actual point of this thread, and not hair splitting over notability "criteria" which itself emphasizes that it does not confer notability. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

People who have been considered to satisfy the notability (ANYBIO) guideline for people are considered generally to pass GNG. As both are notability guidelines, neither takes priority, nor are people required to satisfy both guidelines. But I see now you have moved onto claming they were INVOLVED. On what basis were they INVOLVED? 16:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

See my original comment. TimothyJosephWood 16:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing multiple AFD's in the same topic area does not make one 'involved'. Being 'involved' means having a conflict of interest, or strong feelings in the area. Merely acting in an administrative capacity (closing a discussion falls under this) previously is explicitly not 'involved'. Have they been involved in content disputes in the scouting area? Do they have a 'SCOUTS ARE AWESOME' template on their userpage? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, especially when it was explicitly pointed out that his first close was problematic and immediately reopened and it should have been very obvious that the AfDs were related. Being involved doesn't mean AKS is involved with the Scouting movement, but rather he was "making a point" that the Bronze Wolf award is notable - something that the community has not agreed on. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed far from the first time, eg: this. Things do not seem to be improving. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a growing trend over the past 2 years for non-admins to close more AfDs. I can only assume this is because people who would have become admins 10 years ago can't now due to rising standards, so more of a blind eye is turned to NACs. A similar situation here resulted in a lot of discussion, but no agreement that the AfD closing itself was bad. Having said all that, if AKS is making too many bad closes, he doesn't clearly have the confidence of the community, and should stop it now before he gets a topic ban. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• There's also this recent NAC which he closed literally the next edit after being at DRV [108]. Given, the article was short and it could be done from history so there wasn't really much difference, but closing an AfD as 'redirect' when no single person had !voted that way at AfD shows a lack of judgement in my mind. Especially given that this editor had just been at DRV, which should have been a hint that treading lightly with NACs would be a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup, this fellow speedily redirected Hindoo. See my: post on his talk page. That ethnic slur page had been around for five years, in its current form. Another editor, without any previous discussion on its talk page, or on WT:INDIA, proposed taking it to AfD in an edit summary, part of a back a forth with another editor, and a bunch of clueless Wikipedians (who didn't understand what the page was about) all agreed that it should be redirected to Hindu. All this happened during that time of year between Christmas and New Year when we are all watching with the eyes of a hawk. How do I restore the valuable content that has disappeared? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus at that AfD was pretty clearly merge, and it was done here [109]. My issue was that closing an AfD as "redirect" when the word was never mentioned in the discussion immediately after having another NAC taken to AfD shows bad judgement on this area of work. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

:) Thanks, I didn't get that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, the close wasn't quite appropriate, and the hasty redirecting performed by the closer left the dab at Hindoo (disambiguation) stranded. I did clean that up, but I really didn't want to bother with trouting that user (I'm having my fair share of drama these days with the Saraiki dialect RM, and I really don't want to have more). – Uanfala (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni and Uanfala (talk), did anyone of you check the article Hindoo before it was merged (I mean the contents)?? It just had ONE LINE (Hindoo is an archaic spelling of Hindu, and one whose use today may be considered derogatory). That's not merge-worthy at ALL (as a matter of fact Wikimandia also recommended similar in the AfD article). This is the problem, people jump to crucify others without even looking into all aspects. Just because someone is not happy with an NAC, does not make the closer a bad "editor and person" automatically. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

AKS.9955, neither of us claimed you were a bad editor or person. Wikimandia's vote was Merge anything interesting with Hindu and leave redirect it was not simply "redirect". All the other editors !voted "merge" simply. I'm not trying to crucify you here. I'm just saying that a supervote that had no basis in the consensus right after getting taken to DRV on another NAC is probably not a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni, lol. Perhaps you missed out on all the trouts, poster child and other adjectives I have been receiving. Anyway, that is not the point. I asked you, what was there to merge in the one line article?? Please thinks before you start accusing someone. I ask you to try and "merge" the contents. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Uanfala did the merge here [110]. Your opinion is a valid one, and I'm not disagreeing with it. You should have !voted it rather than closing it, since there was no one else arguing your view at the time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

AKS.9955 If you really thought that Hindoo was a one line page, then you are merely showing your ignorance. The meat of the page was in the references. It was really an ethnic slur page, whose references spoke to the different forms in which (mostly) Indian-Americans experienced the slur in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Please don't be arrogant, when you are that clueless. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fowler&fowler, the article ONLY HAD ONE LINE; regardless of what you say here. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

AKS.9955 and you don't see SIX LINES of notes below it, not to mention the references, or did you not care to notice them? You don't think I know what I created five years ago, after having made 20,000 edits on Wikipedia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• The article main-space had precisely ONE LINE (16 words to be exact). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

AKS.9955 And because it had only one line, now matter how much valuable content it has in the references, you think there is nothing of value in that page, and nothing salvageable? Nothing, then, in your view, deserved to be included in the lead of the Hindu page, as it now has been (courtesy user:Uanfala) along with the references? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I never said a word about the value of the content. What you don't understand is that it was NOT ME who decided to "knock-off" the article; it was an AfD discussion; I just happened to CLOSE IT. Grow-up and get it right. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

AKS.9955 If you weren't implying it, then how does it matter whether it had one line or twenty? You are the one who got worked up about the one line (in capitals), insinuating that others did not notice it, including me, who authored it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I am a bit surprised by the hostility and canvassing being done against me. Well, to discuss if a award is notable or not (which effects 300+ articles); what is the right place - a AfD or open a discussion in the article talkpage? There are multiple AfDs open on this subject, what do you suggest to do - keep all the AfDs open? Discuss centrally and then apply the consensus to all the related articles. Anyway, looking at the merits of the AfD alone, the article was surviving the AfD - period. It does not matter if someone likes it or not. There is very clear consensus for the article to be kept. I am NOT trying to declare any award notable; the community (Kintetsubuffalo, Jkudlick, Evrik, Naraht, Narky Blert and Timothyjosephwood) in the AfD discussion said that the award is notable. Then there where others who gave different rational for keep. Apart from the nominator, only one user voted for weak delete; please don't tell me that for closing an AfD, this fact should not be considered (I am not saying that only votes were counted). I hope people understand that the AfD closure's job is NOT to give his own opinion on the AfD but to arrive to what the community had decided, and I did exactly that. If people wish to discuss the notability of a particular award; please take the discussion to the relevant talkpage of the article - as far as this AfD is concerned, it was a clear keep and hence I closed it accordingly and stood by it. I would now like to reply to all the points raised in this discussion by all users;

1. I declared an award notable: I declared nothing notable. I merely closed and AfD based on consensus built by the community. User:Kintetsubuffalo, User:Egel, User:Evrik, User:Bduke, User:Naraht, User:Btphelps, User:Narky Blert, User:E.M.Gregory, User:Timothyjosephwood and User:Alansohn are the ones who said that the award is notable; NOT ME. I just went by what everyone said.
2. Claim that I ignored point 2: As I said above, the community (User:Kintetsubuffalo, User:Egel, User:Evrik, User:Bduke, User:Naraht, User:Btphelps, User:Narky Blert, User:E.M.Gregory, User:Timothyjosephwood and User:Alansohn) had already decided towards a clear keep. Apart from the nominator, one user voted for weak delete. Everyone had given their reasons very explicitly and this AfD was not at all a close call and point 2 was not ignored.
3. Zoroastrian Students' Association AfD: This AfD closure was non-controversial, was re-opened by Sysop Malcolmxl5 and subsequently the AfD was closed with no consensus. It appears that Kintetsubuffalo is deliberately posting only a part of the talkpage conversation and not the full conversation.
4. Wayne Woodward AfD: As Davey2010 and Bonadea pointed out (something I had missed there), I had closed the AfD right after relisting it. There were no disagreements / warnings given (as Kintetsubuffalo dramatically puts it).
5. This talk: was not a warning given (as Kintetsubuffalo dramatically puts it) and was just a discussion with NewYorkActuary.
6. List of Australian middleweight boxing champions AfD: User:Papaursa did not agree with NAC, I stood by my decision. He said he will take it to DRV, he did not and the AfD maintained. Where is the problem with this?
7. Leslie R. Mitchell AfD: Is the reason why we are having this discussion. This particular AfD is a very clear keep where no-one (apart from the nominator and another user) supported the AfD. More than 10 users opposed the AfD; where is the question of ambiguity??

What really surprises me is the hostility, name calling, aggressive behavior and judgmental approach. Without even looking at the facts, people have started talking about my behavior (see [111])??? Does User:Kintetsubuffalo not understand any Wikipedia:Civility that he termed me as a poster child and I ask him to explain his comment? As I was writing this comment, someone posted a message for another NAC done by me. Well the matter has been answered by RegentsPark, but the point is what am I supposed to do for all the "disgruntled" people who refuse to understand and accept that AfD can go against their wishes?? Folks, this AfD had clear consensus towards keep, I performed the NAC and am standing-by my decision in performing the NAC. The matter is already in DRV, let the community decide there. As far as the AfD is concerned, the community decided VERY clearly towards a unanimous keep and hence I performed the NAC. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's not be too hasty, and end up losing a productive editor, his NAC actions were clearly in good faith, and I don't think anyone's disputing that. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Re point 1, "Winner of Bronze Wolf Award award, making him notable" is AKS.9955's summary, which very clearly declares the award to be notable, even though this was quite a major point of contention during the discussion. It's not an appropriate statement for a NAC, considering the circumstances. If it is simply an innocent problem of language or communication, then it underlines the fact that maybe the editor shouldn't be closing contentious arguments. Sionk (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Just leaving this here:

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 30 - Relisted
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 25 - Relisted
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 7 - Essentially withdrawn
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 23 - Closure overturned and article deleted
• October 4 AN thread, same issues. The result was to reopen.
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 October 21 - Regarding Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip – Vacate close and relist

TimothyJosephWood 16:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Timothyjosephwood posted some logs up. Proves my point exactly about smearing, being judgmental and giving selective information. What he does not explicitly state is the outcome. Following;

1. Sweat Cosmetics DRV: Relisted with comment "Most contributors endorse the closure as such, because they don't consider the assessment of consensus to be in error, but they believe that more discussion would have been merited".
2. List of Australian middleweight boxing champions DRV: The DRV closing comments were "Keep" closure endorsed".
3. List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela DRV: This was relisted and finally closed with "no consensus". Another bureaucratic step. There were admins (like Lankiveil and RoySmith) who endorsed the close.
4. Speedy (musician) DRV: False information given by Timothyjosephwood. Result was "Endorsed - I seriously don't see the consensus in Keeping it but arguing over it is pointless and beginning to be a waste of everyones time, Best thing I can do is take it on the chin and move on!"
5. The Pioneer Trail (tour) DRV: Yes, the closure was overturned but it was because of copyright problems and had little to do with the closure. If you see the actual AfD discussion, you will notice that very experienced editors such as DGG, Shawn in Montreal, Kvng, Atlantic306 and Dane2007 voted very strongly for keep. So are we going to question there judgement now and call them names? As a matter of fact, no one voted for delete.
6. October 4 AN thread about Martin Sekulić: Again false information. This thread was never closed and the related AfD was left untouched.
7. Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip DRV: Yup. Closing comments; "Vacate close and relist. The discussion in this review is as much a procedural review of the close as it is a re-arguing of the AfD, and I'm not sure there's any good way to tease those apart. So, I'm just going to back out the AfD close and let it run for another week. Hopefully that will result in a clear consensus one way or the other."

Trust this clarifies. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem is in part that even when you are right, you are right for the wrong reason. That is, your closure summary does not reflect the discussion. That certainly has been my experience of your NACs in the past and of your reaction to criticism of them. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support 6month-1year topic ban - In short the editor seems to continue to close controversial AFDs[112], Ignores editors help and advice inregards to AFD closures and last but not least they also refuse to reopen any AFD they've closed thus forcing everyone to open a DRV- Not necessary a bad thing however reopening them is I guess a way of saying "Yes I may have been wrong and will allow it to be reclosed" if that makes sense,

In short I believe they're closing way too many controversial AFDs and should probably take a step back for a while,

I admit I made the mistake a year ago of closing early (linked above) however I've listened to people and have changed ... unfortunately the same cannot be said for this editor who as I said seems to ignore anyone and everyone. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Davey2010, me and you clearly have a history here sp I understand the anger and vengeance you have. You really need to explain why this AfD closure was "controversial" and where was this taken up in DRV / AN? I don't recall this being discussed (pardon me if I missed). I have IN DETAIL explained every DRV / "so called controversy" above. You might want to update yourself on that. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• If you honestly believe my comment was all because we've had our differences then you don't know me very well! - I don't hold grudges and the way I see things is "the past is the past", I've had many arguments with people who have been reported here and some I have vouched for and that's despite our differences so no this isn't anything to do with anger, vengeance nor our past. The AFD should speak for itself - It was controversial, Just because you wasn't reverted it doen't mean it wasn't uncontroversial - Some may of thought reverting your close would've been pointless I don't know - Only those who participated can answer that but from an outside view it was a controversial close. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Davey2010, pardon me but I don't want to know you. And Yes, you are taking this as an opportunity to get back at me. Had you read what I have written above, I don't think you would have said what you said. By the way, you still need to explain why did you call that AfD closure "controversial". You said it, you explain. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Your choice, Read what I've just wrote - I don't hold pathetic grudges, Because it was related to OTRS so therefore I believe it was controversial for that reason and that reason alone I've read your comments however I still believe a short topic ban is warranted (BTW If this was a grudge then wouldn't I have suggested it indef ? ...., Anyway I have no wish to argue over this and I'm currently sourcing an article which is more productive than us arguing. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment AKS.9955 has not even begun to accept any wrongdoing that he may have inappropriately closed AfDs. This is worrying. AKS.9955 is essentially saying that his closing of multiple articles is within the rules for NAC. Clearly - and you only have to see the comments here from editors who were all *involved* in the AfD's - he assumes a consensus too quickly and closes controversial AfDs and this is something that is not allowed under the rules of NACs. His judgement is being questioned, not the result. His defense of his actions above boils down to his belief that he reached the correct decision and he misses the fact that it is entirely beside the point whether an admin would reach the same conclusion or not. His subsequent conduct after his error was pointed out is the reason why the community has lost confidence in his ability to discern which AfDs can be reasonably closed by NAC. Also worrying, the longer-term pattern shows that he is not "learning" and in fact is pretty much unable to accept he erred. That is not good. I believe a (short) topic ban from NAC is appropriate to serve as provide him with a moment of pause to consider exactly the AfDs that fall under the remit of AfDs. I think a topic ban is appropriate, but I think it should be measured in weeks rather than months. A Topic Ban isn't meant to be a punishment, but rather an opportunity for AKS to have a rethink and figure out why the community lost confidence in him and then change that part of his conduct - and that is achievable (I believe) in a short period of time. If he doesn't learn, chances are he'll find himself back here again. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• HighKing, actually what is worrying is a user like you, who nominates an article for AfD, refuses to accept the closure and wastes time of so many people in DRV / AN and does not stop in blaming other fellow editors just to get an article deleted. I have gone and re-opened AfDs if the reason was apt and also have agreed with other editors in the past about AfD closures; I seriously don't want to waste my time in digging them out; but if need be I can. This was a clear keep and I will stand by my decision. You have a clear bias on this topic, which is not my problem. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, such spin and deflection! For the record, nowhere have I stated that I don't accept the result. Nowhere have I said it was a "wrong" result (even on that discussion you deleted from your Talk page) only that it was inappropriate for NAC. Nowhere have I "blamed other editors just to get an article deleted". I didn't open the DRV nor did I open this AN/I and ironically, both were opened by an editor that was looking for a "Keep" on the article. If you've gone and re-opened AfDs in the past, how many? And should that not have given you a clue (before we got to here) that perhaps you were doing something wrong? I reiterate - this is entirely about your inability to judge whether an AfD is appropriate for NAC or not. You are now compounding your poor judgement with inappropriate subsequent behaviour and personal comments. Your comment that you "stand by" your decision is very worrying. Perhaps Davey2010 is correct and your topic ban should be longer, not shorter. Editors who are unwilling to hold their hand up pretty quickly and acknowledge a mistake tend to learn slowly and need more time to learn. Endorse topic ban of 3 months. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• HighKing, when did I say that you initiated the DRV / AN? I did not. I said you waste time of so many people in DRV / AN. Let's not forget that it was you who started this discussion; thereby the DRV / AN (which by the way is a clear keep). You should know that AfD is not a discussion forum; if you want to discuss the notability of the award; take it to the article talkpage (which impacts 300+ articles). That AfD (standalone) was a clear keep and I will maintain it such. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous. The only person who has wasted so much time is you, who can't seem to understand which AfDs are suitable for NAC and which are not. Read the rules, they're pretty straight forward. And if you're not sure, if someone comes to your Talk Page and points out that you've made a mistake followed by another editor, both of whom are experienced editors with more experienced than you, take the hint and accept you've made a mistake. If you had done that right at the start, you wouldn't have wasted the time of so many other editors at the DRV and AN/I pages. I've better things to be doing with my time. My advice to you is to step away from the keyboard because you are not helping yourself and you're now fighting with everybody on this thread. I don't think we're all wrong.... -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support warning only - I got pinged to this conversation per my participation in the Hindoo AfD. I would like to remind admins that we wouldn't need NAC if there were enough admins doing their jobs on maintenance tasks. Instead we have a huge backlog and have to rely on NAC, and now someone trying to be helpful is being brought to ANI. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support 6 month tban I support a six-month topic ban on AKS.9955 from doing non-admin closures. I would have been fine with a one month ban, but to me it seems that he needs some time to cool off. He's accusing other editors of acting in bad faith because they disagree with his actions, and I'm not sure that a shorter topic ban would allow him to distance himself from the emotions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni, let me ask you this; do you think that this AfD was not a clear keep? Just answer the question straight (imagining that you are fresh into this discussion). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I endorsed the close at DRV. I'm supporting the ban because of your closes after that and your actions fighting with people here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• What fighting TonyBallioni? Are you suggesting that I don't even defend myself on an AN???? For example, in case of Hindoo (that me and you were discussing), I just stated a fact that the article just had 16 words in mainspace; where was I wrong in that? I did not find it merge-worthy; someone else did and he did it. Whats the big fuss and why the remark about "fighting"? People have been accusing me for all sorts of stuff, I think I hold the right to reply, clarify and defend myself. Put yourself in my situation and think; what would you do if you are constantly being accused - first on DRV and then here. As a matter of fact, I never wanted to pick an argument (mentioned that on my talkpage), but then I am dragged into this. A simple DRV (without useless blames) would have solved the problem. There was no need to un-necessarily accuse anyone, had someone just opened the DRV without prejudice and vengeance. Look, I don't like wasting time here; like everyone else, I too like making positive contributions. Two days back I started Gandhi family article with the hope that I will spend few hours writing it today. And what did I do today for 4 hours???? Edit this AN. Thats not what I came to Wikipedia for. Anyway, I am actually sick and tiered of this AN discussion and would like to end this there. People can say whatever they wish to; I will only step in if I feel it is necessary. What a HUGE waste of time by an AfD nominator who refuses to accept the AfD discussion result. You have a good evening ahead. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think this AfD, related to this DRV is pretty emblematic of the problem, how the user closed, how they were unresponsive, and how they continue to show their rationale even here. So I'll let this suffice rather than hashing through every past conflict they've had, and people can click through the links if they want.

Two days before the close, it was pointed out that at the AfD that it was copyvio. After the close it was again pointed out that it was copyvio on the user's talk, they were asked to self revert, and they completely ignore this and are adamant that it was a snow close because look how many votes[113]. Even here they want to defend the close in the same way emphasizing how many voted very strongly for keep, so surely we should be impressed. And surely it had nothing to do with the closure, since they missed the comment about copyvio, because after all, it didn't start with a bullet and a bold vote, which is apparently what they were counting anyway.

So I have no sympathy for complains here about time wasting, from someone who apparently fairly consistently thinks it's a waste of time to read AfDs they are counting closing, and who could have avoided this and many other debacles if they had simply listened to others for two seconds. TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have hesitated about commenting here, partly because I am a largely inactive admin who has not closed a AfD for some time. Of course, I could not have closed the AfD in question, as I commented there. The real issue is not the keep closure, but the reason given. In several AfDs, the question whether receiving the Bronze Wolf Award makes a person notable has been strongly discussed. User:DGG started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbert Hartog as an instance where there was essentially nothing else claimed. This turned out to be not the case but it points to a serious attempt to answer the question whether the award makes a person notable. This NAC closure and the total failure of the User: AKS.9955 to understand the issue has totally confused the matter. The fact that he then closed a similar AfD even after his action was queried is a large worry. I support instructing him to not close AfDs for a period of at least 3 months and hope he gets to understand the process in that time. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing TPA Access

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

---

Kindly review the talk page access of User talk:Grouchy Potato. User appears to be WP:NOTHERE. AIV bot resisting report of already-blocked user here. If and once talk page access is revoked, this discussion should be considered as resolved. User has been alerted of the ANI reporting on their talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: User has blanked the ANI notice on their talk page here. --JustBerry (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Resolved per talk page access of user reported being revoked. --JustBerry (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Reporting IP (possibly IPs)

I'm doing this first time, so I hope that this is appropriate place to report user.

User 188.169.7.238 is active in Georgian sport wiki pages (I mean Georgia (country)). For months he has been constantly removing tables, where Georgia national football team's and Georgia national rugby union team's head to head results against other national teams are displayed and replacing them with his own version of tables, that are way less informative, as there are not displayed neither how many matches Georgia played against other nations, nor goal difference and win percentage. Also he never cites sources for his tables, where did the information come from and sometimes removes references along with table. The tables that are constantly deleted by him, are pretty match standard on every other national football team's page. He has reverted back to his changes from 16 July 2016 to today several times: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 He has done same on Georgian National Rugby union team page, his edits have been reverted every time (this continiued several years already) and users have warned him several times as can be seen from his talkpage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

Also I suspect, that those IP addresses are from one person, as they edit similar pages and similar sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. It would be good, if national team pages were semi-protected to prevent every IP editing them.--Woodmana (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

213.74.186.109 / Human like you

User 213.74.186.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) should be blocked for persistent personal attacks.

Latest personal attack: "harasser copied from somewhere else & an unrelated warning" [114]. "harasser" is a personal attack (and the statement "copied from somewhere else & an unrelated warning" is a lie - these were earlier warnings on his talk page [115]).

Background: This user repeatedly violated wikipedia rules, in particular this user seems to be engaged in long term POV pushing and soapboxing and repeatedly made personal attacks. Therefore I left warnings on his talk page. This user contacted other users and acted as if the warnings were not justified and he was a victim. Therefore I restored the warnings for discussion with an explanation why I thought they were justified [116].

User 213.74.186.109 has a history of personal attacks: "sockpuppet" [117], "vandalism by delusional user" [118], "supporters of anarchy and terror" [119], unjustified accusations of "vandalism" [120], "Where did this sock puppet come from? Are you good at yakking too?" [121], "mouthpiece of a terrorist" [122], "An evil intention hides behind your "civil" facade" [123]).

This user has been warned repeatedly for personal attacks: [124], [125], [126], in particular most recently [127] by user User:Editor abcdef.

Looking at the edit history it is very clear that since September 2016 this IP is operated by the same user (same topics, same edit pattern). 2003:77:4F1D:B929:CC3B:3956:435B:2E58 (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It is particularly problematic that he constantly direct personal attacks against other users on talk pages and not a single action can be taken yet since he doesn't like people adding stuff to his talk pages. Any charges against the IP should instead be redirected to user:Human like you since for the past 2 days the latter is the account he uses to edit. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User 213.74.186.109 just confirmed [128] that 213.74.186.109 and 'Human like you' are the same user. It seems that as user Human like you (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) he is playing the same game again. The same pattern of POV pushing, soapboxing [129], and again acting as victim when someone notices this behaviour [130]. In particular, this user continues to make personal attacks over and over again [131],[132],[133], most recently he got warned [134] by user User:EricEnfermero. 2003:77:4F1D:B929:CC3B:3956:435B:2E58 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I endorse this complaint. I see an ongoing pattern of disruptive edits, including POV pushing, false allegations in edit summaries, and failure to respond to concerns raised on their talk page (except to namecall). I do also hear an obvious WP:QUACK. What I don't know is whether there's a larger context or longer history in play. IPs similar to the IP of the above complainant have engaged in some talk page back-and-forth with User:Human like you/the problem IP (e.g., see recent history at Talk:The New York Times, and have now posted to my talk page; they clearly know their way around the wiki. Regardless of that, I think a block of Human like you for persistent disruption is probably warranted at this time—failing that, a stern warning with an admin or two keeping an eye on things. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This user also posted at the Teahouse asking "how to get rid of a stalker". White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

problems at 2017 Istanbul nightclub attack

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

---

This user User:SuperTailsX has made a series of dodgy edits that devolved into blatant vandalism [[135]] he has been asked not to [[136]] and now an IP is making similar edits [[137]], the page has become a revert battleground.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I have just seen that SuperTailsX has been blocked, the IP account is still active and needs watching.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

66.169.145.202

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

---

There is this IP making these unnecessary edits that doesn't go by WP:MOS. Edits like this, this and this. These edits had got reverted by several editors for these kind of edits, even an editor tell him about MOS but it got ignored. This IP has been blocked before, but after the block was removed, this IP keep making disruptive edits on Wikipedia. This IP has made these edits just recently. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note - This appears to be a content dispute based on the assumption that the Manual of Style is policy when it actually isn't. I'm sure people are going to jump in and say that it is policy, but - no, it definitely isn't. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: I don't agree with that, because I ask Laser brain about these edits, and he said "Yes, it's disruptive. If they won't respond to notices about minding the MOS, they will have to receive a block because they are making a lot of work for other editors." This IP is not responding to these editors it's keep making edits like this to articles without explaining why. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't agree with it, but the Manual of Style definitely is not policy. This is a simple case of two editors disagreeing over content. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: I don't think linking pointless phases like this should be acceptable because make it hard to read to some readers, especially in the lead section. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, like I've said, this is a dispute about content. Have you raised the issue on the talk page of the article to seek any form of consensus? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: I'm not sure why you need to be unnecessarily bureaucratic about this situation. This IP is all over the place making ridiculous edits that violate the MOS, refusing to communicate and causing work for other editors. That's disruption, not a content dispute. --Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• Only replying because you pinged me before immediately closing before I had a chance to respond - Asking someone if they've followed the standard procedure when having a dispute with another editor does not count as being "unnecessarily bureaucratic" - if anything, it's due diligence. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

TBAN request

Made by

ATS

Affected party

Ronz

Topic

Grace VanderWaal and all related articles

Reason

WP:POINT

Evidence

Talk:Grace VanderWaal, particularly §§ "ELs again", "Having two Youtube sites is nothing worth noting" and "Vevo link"

Statement by ATS

User Ronz has been engaging in repeated, belligerent disruption at Grace VanderWaal and its talk page. In particular, the editor has continued to remove data (these are just the most recent examples; 758122056 claims in the edit summary a consensus in direct opposition to any actual consensus), dishonestly citing BLP, EL*, SOAP and REFSPAM (none of which applies) in order to instead enforce IDONTLIKEIT. (Invocation of BLP is particularly dishonest in light of BLPSOURCES and BLPREMOVE, the actual policies under which data is to be deleted.)

When called on his actions, Ronz invokes CHOICE and FOC (the equivalent of answering "Stop disrupting the article by deleting content!" with "You need to focus on content."), while berating anyone other than himself for failure to gain a consensus.

The user also has been properly upbraided for at least one outright lie.

Most recently, Ronz has played the victim card, complaining that he's entitled to explanations that already have been provided.

I believe it is necessary to invoke a mandatory TBAN to stop the disruption since the editor is refusing, and with trademark belligerence, to self-impose.

—ATS 🖖 talk 18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• ATS is spamming external links in contradiction to WP:ELNO and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Her youtube and vevo channels are linked from her official website and the additional links contain nothing extra. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The ELs include unique videos that are not easily linked off her official site (in fact, last I checked, they're not linked from gracevanderwaalofficial.com at all, and the site is down for the moment). Only in death is demonstrating a terrible lack of knowledge of what constitutes "spamming". —ATS 🖖 talk 19:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Telling Ronz to "Go FOC yourself" and, referring to him quite clearly, "fuck the vandal" is a pretty bad idea. It taints your edits.Doug Weller talk 19:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That's all you read out of that, eh? Unfortunate. The user's activity—which is the purpose here—was monumentally frustrating to at least four other editors. That is the takeway. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

They are not required to be linked directly. Her official youtube, vevo, twitter etc are already all linked from her website. WP:EL explicitly addresses this. Its certainly *not* down as I can access it and one of the youtube links takes you to the EXACT same page as the one linked from her official website. And I know they are because my PC is currently playing the same damn song in stereo. So no, no unique content. Linkspam. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's working for me now, and it has changed. This does not address the user's actions. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And Jesus Christ, the only reason the Vevo link you have put in as an external link is different to the Vevo link from her website is that you have put the external link to the 'videos' section of her channel instead of 'home' as her official website does. Claiming that is 'unique' content is duplicitious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to check the edit history—and, no, that someone is not Jesus Christ. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• In addition, the editor is denying any responsibility for his part in the "war". —ATS 🖖 talk 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ATS. Ronz has been trolling, deleting useful information and otherwise vandalizing the Grace VanderWaal article since she began editing there. I fully support the proposed TBAN against Ronz. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring by Only in death at Grace VanderWaal

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

---

Belligerent misapplication of EL* in violation of consensus at article talk. There is no "spamming". —ATS 🖖 talk 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You will know when I am belligerent. You are spamming youtube links into an article that already has 4 youtube links in the refs (including at least one to her official channel). WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is also very clear. Do not external link more than one official website when they are already linked through an official website. This is basic SEO refspam. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are spamming nothing. Unique content is unique content. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec)There's no consensus to keep those redundant youtube links. And saying stuff like "Go FOC yourself" doesn't serve your argument well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Go FOC yourself" – He's telling someone to Focus On Content, right? "Go focus yourself on content" – what's wrong with that? EEng 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad someone got that ... —ATS 🖖 talk 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I got it immediately. It was a joke. Or at least a tiny sliver of one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

—ATS 🖖 talk 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Read only that, did you? Unfortunate ... —ATS 🖖 talk 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like it's you that needs to be topic-banned. You've been here a long time and should know better than to do the stuff you're doing on that page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Stunningly, horribly, tragically wrong. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Since when is a content dispute about external links a "tragedy"? And is not the case that you've been here for 10 years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting how you missed the tragedy and got the joke ... —ATS 🖖 talk 23:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling a minor edit dispute a horrible tragedy is also a sliver of a joke. Don't give up the day job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

One, two, three strikes, you're out. The tragedy is the shoot-the-reporter shitfest that this has become. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In short, the joke's on you. Boomerangs happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No—boomerangs return on their own. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently you also need to read WP:BOOMERANG. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I commented on this in the thread above at virtually the same time. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Those links don't belong. Please don't edit war to restore them. --John (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I notice this complaint about edit warring from an editor who is currently sitting right at 3RR (and is less than 2 hours from violating it) due to their insistence upon reverting at least two other editors. I notice that this editor has reverted 6 changes to the article in the past week (and seems to have an unusually high number of reverts overall for someone not engaged in bot-assisted anti-vandalism). I notice that this user has used edit summaries like (rvv), ‎(rv vandal) and ‎ (rv 100% bullshit edit: 67% because the vids are there, taken directly from the channel; 33% for blatant misuse of SOAP and BLP to cover IDONTLIKEIT) in response to good-faith edits. I notice that this editor made certain unqualified statements about the article subject's official website and what links it contains that were quickly proven false.

Therefore, I draw the conclusion that there is, somwhere in the vicinity a a certain sub-equatorial type of throwing stick fluttering around, looking for a face to run into. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your blinders are showing ... —ATS 🖖 talk 20:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

When one man calls you a dog, ignore him. But when three (or more [138] [139] [140] [141]) men call you a dog, check yourself for fleas. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hilarious that it applies only here, not to the genesis of this whole thing. Your blinders have taken you over. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please review the first rule of holes. While it's not an actual Wikipedia policy, it might help forestall an escalation of this problem. I understand that this advice might be frustrating and unwelcome, but these additional links really are not unique content and really do fall afoul of our policies for external links. David in DC (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Because of recent, and likely fluid, changes to the subject's official presence, this point I have already conceded—and if I wasn't clear before, let me be so: I'm conceding this point. The issue is the behavior as noted above, to which others have been all too happy to apply a boomerang effect. If this is how we investigate things here, the project is fucked. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Only in Death, please stop edit warring. These links have been discussed extensively at the Talk page, and the consensus is to keep them. The subject is notable mainly for three things: (1) her appearance on AGT; (2) her YouTube videos; and (3) her new EP. Only in death keeps trying to delete three ELs that are of key interest to any reader of this article. The first links to the subject's main YouTube channel. The second links to the "videos" page of her YouTube channel that features her EP and the songs on the EP. The third links to the appearance on AGT that made the subject notable and famous and has been viewed well over 100 million times on social media (both YouTube and Facebook). It is also suspicious that this person began edit-warring in support of Ronz on the same day that this TBAN request was made. Their edit summaries have some of the same tics of grammar/usage. Is Only in death a sockpuppet of Ronz? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:ELNO, WP:ELOFFICIAL or WP:ELMINOFFICIAL? I suggest you do. You have linked to her youtube channel, her other vevo channel - both of which are linked through her official website, and a youtube video which is *already linked to* in Ref 21. So thats 3 extra links that all fall foul of the above. None of it is 'unique' content and at this point my opinion this is link/ref spamming is increasing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Absent any material in the article relying upon those ELs as a source, they literally add nothing to the encyclopedia. Which means they don't belong. Full stop. While the talk page certainly looks like Ronz is editing against consensus, it's very clear that he's been editing within policy, and refraining from incivility and personal attacks. On the other hand, that talk page is chock full of personal attacks and incivility towards Ronz, and the consensus there is to violate WP:ELNO with no rationale given. I'm all for ignoring policy in favor of consensus when there's a good reason for it, but the reason here boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Which is a pretty crap reason if you ask me. If it was a good reason, I'd have written two-page book summaries and linked dozens of pieces of official and fan art to The Dresden Files. I think those articles are shamefully short. But I can't justify adding all that, so I don't. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(Addendum) I'd also like to point out that ATS's responses to every bit of criticism in this thread has been a mild personal attack. I'm a little surprised no-ones pointed this out before now, but there it is. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No surprise, this ... —ATS 🖖 talk 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Whats more interesting is that considering the length of time both you and Ssilvers have been here, you both do not actually know what vandalism is at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Referring to [142] and [143]?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup - and the above accusations on this page. Now personally I'm quite happy to go to 3rr and stop when its blatantly 'We're going to spam youtube links' againt guidelines. Frankly given the above responses which show they have absolutely no ability to read and understand clear English, I guess its not surprising they also do not know the difference between vandalism and removing unencylopedic content. Also ATS, this is how you know I am belligerent - I stop actually trying to explain things to you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it all seems aimed at escalating this needlessly tense situation. They have what at the most amounts to a local consensus and questionably so. If they wish to IAR or they think the guidelines and/or policies do not apply in this situation they should have no issue justifying it on the articles talk page and seeking a consensus thru RFC or related process. And if they wish to continue here they should simply be banned. It will allow them time to cool down a depersonalize this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Frankly given the above responses which show they have absolutely no ability to read and understand clear English, I guess its not surprising they also do not know the difference between vandalism and removing unencylopedic content. Also ATS, this is how you know I am belligerent - I stop actually trying to explain things to you. And that's all that need be said about that. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Belligerent misapplication of EL* in violation of consensus at article talk. There is no "spamming". I'd go back to the comment that was a response to. But this tit for tat bores me. Good day.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Pardon my French but this is all pure grade A USDA choice bullshit. This has been going on since October. It's time to stop. What I would suggest is that all of you external link warriors open an RFC and get a consensus. After the rfc closes go to WP:ANRFC and seek an official close from a neutral third party. In the event that they can not seek a consensus thru help from the greater wikipedia community ban each one of them. Ronz, ATS, and Ssilver for edit warring. This is a content dispute. Move it along.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

... this is all pure grade A USDA choice bullshit. That much is certain. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your actions just as specifically as Ronz. I can't note that Ronz is a edit warrior without noting that you are as well. I can't see banning Ronz without banning you and I can't see entertaining your behavior when it only seems aimed at further escalating a needlessly tense situation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If you say so. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposal to ban FoCuSandLeArN due to undisclosed paid editing

This has become slightly academic since FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired today, but given that this user has racked up 70k edits, I think it is important that the community is aware. As I discussed at length on their talk page two weeks ago, I had noticed numerous examples where they'd written articles within days of users uploading photos on commons that were obviously PR shots. They disputed my allegation that they were paid to create them, but User:Doc_James has confirmed through off-wiki communications that at least one of those articles was indeed paid for. What first alerted me though was a major rewrite of Andrew N. Liveris, the CEO of Dow Chemical Company (also majorly rewritten) to which User:Earflaps had added a PR shot (Earflaps ANI for context). Due to extensive use of huggle and drafting articles in their sandbox, it's not easy to work out what they've edited, but I have collected various articles and diffs in User:Smartse/notes. Amongst them:

• Bill Koenigsberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) CEO of Horizon Media which is currently being drafted. An early version of the bio contained PR-copy that I am unable to find online.
• Securities and Exchange Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an attempted POV-fork of Banc De Binary whose representatives are already banned and which User:Nagle described as having "some of the worst COI problems in Wikipedia history".
• Paul_Singer_(businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) rewrite removes His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects. As noted on the TP, they made repeated attempts to gain consensus to remove the use of "vulture" e.g.
• Alcoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rewrite removed any critical content in Environmental record. Article was previously edited by Mark at Alcoa (talk · contribs).
• Arconic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Company split from Alcoa.
• Kinross Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Major rewrite downplays financial losses and expands Corporate responsibility section.
• RadiumOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Major expansion, article previously attracted COI: [144]
• Bog standard paid editing at CreditEase, Spur Corporation, Dual Universe, Ludovic Le Moan and Sigfox

This represents only a tiny fraction of their edits, but at least to me, I don't see any possibility other than them being a paid editor. Considering they'd been rumbled and I'd warned them that they'd be bought here, it's no surprise that they've retired. While it's purely ceremonial, I still think that we should ban them. It's going to take some fresh thinking to decide how to go about cleaning up. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment I agree the ban is justified. At this point the Wikipedia position is very clear. No ned to risk them coming out of retirement to make a dollar.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I've done some cleanup on Kinross Gold, and many BdB related topics. There's no doubt many of these including the gold mine company have been targeted for major PR wikiwashing. Doc James's discovery of an undeclared off-wiki commercial nexus comes as no surprise. Ceremonial or not, we have to send a clear signal that use of Wikipedia as a corporate PR vehicle is not tolerated. - Brianhe (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I didn't realize they'd actually tried a POV fork at Banc De Binary. For those who came in late, here's the previous Banc De Binary mess on Wikipedia, from 2014: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Banc_de_Binary.2C_Round_2. There was an intense paid editing effort, including an offer of $10,000 to anyone who could "fix" their article on Wikipedia to omit details of their illegal operations in the US. (They lost in US court, and had to stop operating in the US, refund every US customer 100% of customer losses, and pay a sizable penalty.) Since 2014, it's gradually come out that Banc De Binary, and most of the binary options industry, is a large scale scam. There are multiple reliable sources for this.[145][146]. It's become politically embarrassing to Israel's government. Due to a loophole in Israeli law, it's legal to scam non-Israelis from inside Israel. Israel's securities regulator is trying to fix that, but as yet, it's still legal.[147]. There's also a big SEO effort to hide bad stories about binary options, involving a large number of dummy sites promoting binary option companies. What we see on Wikipedia is spillover from all this. John Nagle (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note: based what appears to be pretty damning evidence here, I will revoke their autopatrolled and new page reviewer rights. BethNaught (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Philippine Drug War

A new problem user at Philippine Drug War, User:Mr.User200, seems unwilling or unable to discuss his edits, but happy to revert repeatedly. First edit to the page [148] added "Criminal Gangs" to the infobox. Then he reverted [149] User:Hariboneagle927 without explanation, removing "former" from a group that no longer supports the Drug War. He then added a reference for "Criminal Gangs" [150] which doesn't mention anything about gangs. I pointed this out, and his only comment was "Be polite otherwise you will only get into trouble." Well, I think I have been polite, but I am running out of politeness fast. He thinks he can revert repeatedly without explanation. I would like an adjudication of his behaviour. Thanks. zzz (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling my edits bullshit is not a polite way to start a discussion. Also User Signedzzz have an historial of blocks for being offensive in talk pages (Personal attacks and harrasement).Mr.User200 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Also the revert made on Hariboneagle was to revert his reversion on another user Edit. You can see in the Article History my contribution with sources and presentation in the Infobox. Iam not marauding articles erasing information because i dont like it.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No: I called the stuff you were adding bullshit, after I had just explained exactly how and why it is bullshit, and after you had repeatedly reverted without responding on talk. What would you call the bullshit you added? Your response was to revert again, and try to provoke an impolite response on the talk page. Are you going to explain why you deceptively added an irrelevant reference to your edit, and repeatedly reverted, now that you're here? Or is that just how you typically edit when there is no source that legitimately supports your edit? zzz (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there is not much I can say about your behaviour. It is clear after reading your rhetoric.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Still no comment, then, about adding deceptive references and reverting to keep them in articles? It seems like all your edits will have to be reviewed. zzz (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Mruser200 you need to take part in the discussion on the talk page. There's no way to achieve a consensus if you do not. If they do not Signedzzz you could start an RFC and get a consensus for the content you wish to place in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just trying to remove content, including the content with the fake ref added by this user. I could start an RFC, though. zzz (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting it as it may help. Although his actions seem to constitute edit warring.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Aaron's The Best

Aaron's The Best editing and behavior was being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive942#Aaron's The Best: Ownership and CIR issues, but the discussion was archived before anything was resolved. However, after seeing Special:diff/Aaron's the Best/758536826, I think it's appropriate to re-open this discussion for adminsitrators to review and possibly take some action.

The edit made to Tracey Ullman was wrong on so many levels. If this was the first edit made by a complete newbie with know idea at all about Wikipedia, then perhaps there might be room for some non-biting and warnings. Aaron's The Best, however, has been warned about this kind of thing mutliple times, has been previously blocked for adding unsourced content, and was notified of the previous ANI discussion regarding him but did not comment. I'll leave it up to community to determine what should be done, but essenitally blanking a well-developed article like Tracey Ullman and leaving the edit sum "LOL xd" seems to indicate a lack of competence to edit appropriately and that something probably needs to be done to prevent any future disruption of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. I didn't want to open another discussion about this editor since I started the last one, but I agree that something beyond yet another final warning is necessary. I was frankly rather surprised at the edit linked above, because although ATB is still not particularly concerned with editing collaboratively and still uses language that's not always quite civil, that kind of blatant vandalism is unusual. The bottom line is that it really doesn't seem like ATB gets what Wikipedia is and is not - so WP:CIR, again. Maybe a mentor could help, if he were to agree to that, but other than that I don't know. --bonadea contributions talk 23:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Tracey Ullman diff doesn't show lack of competence. It instead shows a clear attempt to vandalize the article. I'm looking at some of the other edits from the previous discussion and I see nothing to say they lack competency. What I personally see instead is that they are simply not here to collaboratively work on an encyclopedia.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

He just doesn't have the competence to edit. I ran into him a week ago, and I was really confused by his editing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)