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

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)

Erzan

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)

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)

Meatpuppet incident at Albert Cashier

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)

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)

Van Dulsox

I just blocked Van Dulsox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a WP:DUCK sock of Carlos Danger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), itself a likely Scibaby sock. Same focus on tendentious edits to climate change topics, same focus on reverting William Connolley, same edit summaries, same lack of Talk engagement. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Vandal Socks"? Someone is trying to be funny. RolandR (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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. Cullen³²⁸ 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 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)

Topic ban User:Cassianto from discussions of infoboxes

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 [68] and [69]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 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)

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)

68.118.227.166

An IP 68.118.227.166 keeps inserting the same POV vandalism in the 2017 Istanbul nightclub attack.

[[70]] [[71]]

He was asked not to[[72]], but continues.

Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

IP has been given a level 4 warning and I'm not seeing anything since then. But if this continues post here or just ping me. Anymore of this and they will be blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

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: [73], [74]

Here's another, in the same article about the ship, a long and unsourced analysis of a photo of one sailor: [75].

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 Грищук ЮН explain 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: [76] 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've 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)

User:Thomas Turner

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

---

This Thomas Turner guy keeps changing stuff in articles without valid explanation as to why he's doing it, going against what is written in the sources. I'd scrutinize his actions if I were you. Take a look at these contributions of his. Classicalfan626 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Which ones? And what is wrong with them? Is it vandalism? If so, did you warn the editor and report them at WP:AIV? Sorry, but this noticeboard is usually the last resort, and you really need to be more specific. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• So, the sources have him born in Brooklyn ([77], [78], [79]). The other editor was correct. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Quick update, for the record: Classicalfan626 left a very courteous note on my talk page and on Thomas Turner's, which I appreciate. Thank you for closing this, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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 [80] was also about himself. Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a new section on their talk page [81] 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. [82] 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)

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 [83]. 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: [84], [85]. 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" [86] 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)

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 [87] and included a block deletion of other editors' signed comments. [88] 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... [89] 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)

Magnolia677

Magnolia677 has been constantly wikihounding me and making me feel uncomfortable with them personally singling me out of multiple editors by joining discussions on multiple pages or topics I edit or multiple debates I contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work. Here's the most recent one[90] when I was in a discussion with another editor and all of a sudden, Magnolia who has never edited at that article before showed up in the talk page to revert my edit and to immediately dismiss the discussion by concluding I was wrong. Here's another one[91] on the 1st of January when they came to my talk page to intervene in my discussion with another editor about something that doesn't involve them. Here are some more on my archived talk page about them interrogating me about my reviews of drafts that have nothing to do with them [92] [93]. This one's about them accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Infopage100[94]. This one's when they confronted me about cleaning up my talk page saying that I shouldn't change the headers[95] despite that not being a big deal. Here's them unnecessarily templating me when they know I have already discussed the edits with them previously on my talk page and the deletion discussion of Firebeatz.[96][97]. This one was when I told them that they're wikihounding and harassing me[98]. - TheMagnificentist 13:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's good to provide evidence, but a little more structure would help.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Infopage100/Archive#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments reads in part ReZawler is Unrelated to Infopage100 and Confirmed to TheMagnificentist. So yes, that specific sock wasn't shown to be yours although another was, and there are ways of evading checkuser (which I won't divulge here). It's not disputed as far as I can see that you have used another sock, now blocked, so really you have only yourself to blame for that particular suspicion. Agree it wasn't the best way of approaching it.

And I now see at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TheMagnificentist there are four more confirmed and blocked. Andrewa (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There are many allegations above. That one is unconvincing on its own, but might be relevant as part of a pattern. But I think we need to start with a better example than that sock allegation. Can you briefly identify the best example or two of hounding from all of the above? Andrewa (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It all started in November when I added a category to an article, then Magnolia677 reverted it with the edit summary "removing unsourced content" then I reverted their revertion by saying that categories don't need sources. The discussion for that can be found on my talk page here [99]. I believe that was the starting point in our ongoing feud. After the discussion, they reverted many of my category additions then I reverted back by adding sources. After that, the user began wikihounding me by constantly appearing in discussions involving myself, such as the draft rejections here and telling me that I shouldn't remove headers on my talk page here. Later on, they began templating me about my edits that we have previously discussed. This was my edit on Firebeatz and them templating me. This was my edit on Steve Aoki and this is them templating me. I responded back by saying that doesn't need a source because Steve Aoki is a member of 3 Are Legend and by policies that would be enough for inclusion as associated acts. Just recently they started intervening in my discussions such as these, "Removing of lead artists" and "Godfather of EDM". - TheMagnificentist 14:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Categories always require a source/reference. Almost all of them are usually referenced in the articles already. A music producer will have a source somewhere saying he is a producer etc. Merely being listed in the infobox is not a reference. As information in the infobox *also* requires a reference in the article. Again in most cases already existing sources/refs support this so it is not a problem. There is an issue with infobox's being populated with unsourced information, however if there is information in the infobox that is not supported in the article with a reference/source, it should be removed (on a living person's biography). This may not have been explained particularly well to you in the past. In short, dont solely trust what is in the infobox. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I want to help you. But if you can't provide a more concise answer I can't help. Another admin might, but considering the amount of our time you have previously wasted in sockpuppetry investigations alone I rather doubt it.

Would you like me to just investigate the last example you gave? Be warned if it proves as self-inflicted as the sockpuppetry dispute I will not be pleased. (The possible answers are "yes" and "no".) Andrewa (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No. I do not know whether you will consider that example as "self-inflicted" or not and I certainly do not want to displease you. I apologize for 'wasting your time' but I came here because that editor was wikihounding me based on all of the examples I provided and not just one. Maybe another admin can look into it. - TheMagnificentist 15:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• @TheMagnificentist: Magnolia677 clearly believes that you are repeatedly removing sourced material, repeatedly adding unsourced material, and generally do not have a firm grasp of WP:RS; may I suggest you withdraw this plaint now, and re-acquaint yourself with that policy? The worst thing to happen would be a forensic examination of your edits in the context of Magnolia's unspoken suggestion- even by 'another admin.' Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me be transparent. WP:HOUND says "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.". Magnolia did single me out and joined discussions I edited to confront my work Y. Per examples provided above, they were aiming to create annoyance to me, the other editor Y. The unsourced content thing is just an introduction to this case, that's not the real point here. - TheMagnificentist 16:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

TheMagnificentist: you are not being hounded, your edits are being scrutinized closely because of your history of misconduct on Wikimedia projects. You are indefblocked at Wikimedia Commons, and you had a very narrow escape from the same fate here (User talk:TheMagnificentist/Archive 1#Unblock Request). Let me be clear, those who reviewed your unblock request treated you exceptionally kindly - there are many here (myself included) who would not have unblocked you with your history of sockpuppeting and other inappropriate editing. I strongly suggest that you learn to work with Magnolia and accept the fact that they are trying to keep you on the straight and narrow. You are on your very last chance on this project and wasting everyone's time with this sort of complaint is not the sort of thing you should be doing. Learn our policies (if you have reliable sources for your edits, people won't challenge them), make constructive edits and don't cause trouble. WJBscribe (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User:TheMagnificentist - My first thought, in looking over this filing and the history of sockpuppetry, is to propose a boomerang site ban. It is clear that other editors are more tolerant than I am. I would however like to know what your explanation is for the sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is, in my opinion, a perfectly good reason to look with very careful scrutiny at the conduct of another editor. I haven't looked at the details of the content dispute about unsourced and sourced material. However, can you please explain why we should give you more rope after a history of sockpuppetry? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You make an important point. But it cuts both ways. Note this clause which you quote: This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. If it turns out that they are motivated instead by a desire to protect the wiki from your repeated failure to comply with policies and guidelines, then the fact that this causes you distress doesn't make it hounding, and they deserve a barnstar not a block. That's what I mean by self-inflicted. Please consider carefully. Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that we have given user:TheMagnificentist a more than fair hearing, that they have failed completely to justify their complaint, and that it therefore counts as disruption (possibly unintentional). If they do not promptly withdraw it, I would support a boomerang block (at least). Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the OP filed a self-nom RfA on January 1 which was SNOW-closed. I only mention this as a further example of a significant lack of WP:CLUE. I'm not sure if a boomerang is appropriate here, but I am sure that this complaint needs to be closed without action against Magnolia677. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Just for reference, TheMagnificentist did ask about this at WP:THQ#Wikihound so perhaps the reason this ANI discussion was opened had to do with my response. I did try word my post as neutrally as possible, but maybe I could've done a better job in hindsight. FWIW, I think it's a pretty hard to explain to someone who really feels they are being "harassed" that they aren't based upon Wikipedia's definition of the term. Like "notability", it seems hard for some editors to not apply the real world definitions of terms such as "harassment", "hounding", "bullying", etc. to their Wikipedia disputes. When I made my Teahouse post, I thought that this might simply be the case of one editor monitoring another edits described in WP:HA#NOT, but I didn't think the Teahouse was the best place to try and discuss such a thing in detail. I also wasn't aware that TheMagnificentist was being mentored by Anachronist; otherwise, I would've recommended that the issue be discussed with Anachronist.

FWIW, I too do not feel any action needs to be taken against Magnolia677, but I am not sure what should be done in the case of TheMagnificentist. A block intended to punish them would be inappropriate, but at the same time the conditions laid out by Floquenbeam in the aforementioned unblock request referred to above by WJBscribe were clearly agreed to by TheMagnificentist. Ideally, it think it would be appropriate to get some input from Anacnronist, but he currently seems to be on a Wikibreak. Maybe one last chance should be given to TheMagnificentist per WP:ROPE and maybe they should be encouraged to expand their Wikipedia horizons a little bit by avoiding the music-related articles where they seem to be running into trouble and working on other stuff. Going around doing a bit of WP:GNOME stuff on other articles might give them a better perspective on collaborative editing and on how there are other ways in which an editor can be here. Anyway, just my two cents on the matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Geez. I check in during my Wikibreak and find I'm called into this ANI cesspool of all places. Sigh. Looking over this section, I'd like to see a response from TheMagnificentist that demonstrates an understanding of the excellent advice provided so far. I agree that TheMagnificentist's past activity has invited extremely close scrutiny of his actions, and it should be expected that other editors may appear to be hounding when they are in fact giving close scrutiny that TheMagnificentist's past actions have invited. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Very well put. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 4 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)

User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees

User:Carliertwo is a single purpose account who only edits articles connected to Siouxsie Sioux and Siouxsie and the Banshees. This user ensures that all such articles portray their subject in a positive and flattering light, contrary to WP:NPOV. A quick look at any article connected to Siouxsie and the Banshees shows that Wikipedia portrays them as a very highly regarded band that almost nobody has ever said anything negative about, and that all their musical releases have been "hailed" and received "critical acclaim" (usually accompanied by effusive quotes). I believe Carliertwo is responsible for this position, as they editwar to maintain it. My recent interaction with this user has been at Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album), where I removed a statement that a musician "hailed" the album. This was reverted by Carliertwo, so as per WP:BRD I opened a thread on the talk page. As it became apparent that Carliertwo and myself would never agree, I opened an RfC. The result of the RfC was that the statement should not be included in the article. When I removed the statement, Carliertwo reverted me twice (here and here) and substituted the word "namechecked" rather than "hailed". They also left a patronising note on my talkpage in which they sarcastically told me "thanks for your interest" in the article. I am concerned that this user has ownership issues and is preventing Wikipedia from portraying a balanced view of Siouxsie Sioux-related articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like Carliertwo is not respecting the consensus outcome of the RfC and they are edit warring. The comment on your talk page does have the tone of ownership. Perhaps an admin can warn them to conduct themselves more collaboratively.- MrX 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For the hell of it I ran the contribution tool I have on my talk page for the account, and it looks to me like ownership doesn't even begin to describe the contribution count: it is literally all for the band, like some sort of dedicate social media account to ensure that this group is always portrayed in a positive light. Particularly disconcerting in the edit count is the apparent 18 separate edits to the ANI page, 8 to the Admin edit warring page, and the two edits to the AIV page. Given this I would be tempted to do a little more than warn the account to edit more constructively. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been blocked twice due to a Genre warrior as it is explained on my talk with proofs and edits from other users. here. TomStar81. Another point, one user who began a discussion on the ANI then apologized for doing a mistake see here. Carliertwo (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I know our rules. The consensus said, it is not relevant to use the "hailed" word, but it doesn't say that the use of "Namechecked" can't not be put instead per wp:STICKTOSOURCE. For information, one user Ojorojo wrote here: "if he were to be used, stick to the source: "In 20xx, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations." None of the users who took part on the discussion, has ever written on any Siouxsie and the Banshee-related articles. Shouldn't the discussion have invited too users of these pages?. Why is it so much annoying to mention that this album was namechecked by another singer. The reason given by this person is; "it is trivial" which is hugely debatable as it is subjective. Greg Fasolino, could you drop a note here about this witch's hunt and post your point of view. Do you agree with the version written by Ojoroho, above ? . J Milburn, could you drop a few words above for the people who judge my edits without knowing my work. Carliertwo (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop Wikilawyering. Remove the statement now, please, that is the clear consensus of the RfC. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

At the talk, it is written The consensus is against including "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website" in the article. It is not written "The consensus is against including "Tinderbox was namechecked by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson" or The consensus is against including "In 2011, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations" either, the latter seems more apt. Carliertwo (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop Wikilawyering and remove it. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The sentence was removed by Serialjoepsycho, presumably after seeing this thread. In a second edit Serialjoepsycho also removed a section heading, with a reasonable explanation; this second edit was reverted by Carliertwo with the edit summary "this is war"[100], which provides an example of the sort of attitude I'm concerned about. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Does he have the consensus to withdraw the name of the legacy section that has been present for years? The answer is no. Is he an administrator? the answer is negative too. I wrote this is another case of war editing 1 then. Nothing justified your report on ANI, this is abusive. This case was only a war editing issue and there is another board for this. Carliertwo (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Your position is that bold editing is not allowed. Well guess what you are wrong. The edit was bold and it was not reckless. I provided a clear justification for the removal. The content in the legacy section presents further reception but no actually legacy or the part of the band or album. Your objection is simply that I had no consensus prior to removal which is simply stonewalling and not a legitimate objection. Attempting to paint two consecutive edits, my only edits to the article at the time, as edit warring is utter nonsense and simply further evidence of edit warring on your part.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been accused to be a spa. Why should comments from long time users of these articles not be useful in this thread?. Sorry, but this thread is gonna be archived, it is gonna be a stain on my work. It was deliberately made on purpose to damage my reputation. I think that one or two comments from people who know my history, would be more than welcome. It is my right. Carliertwo (talk) 00:38, 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)

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

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)