Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simon Adler (talk | contribs) at 20:32, 29 December 2016 (→Personal attacks not subsiding: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    User:Keri

    NO ACTION
    This thread has been here for three weeks and no admin is apparently willing to take action, so I am IAR closing it. Any admin may re-open it if they see fit (non-admin closure). Linguist Moi? Moi. 18:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Keri and I have been involved in various content disputes on the page Generation Snowflake, mostly related to NPOV. My view is that the page is heavily slanted towards the narrative that millennials are coddled, over-sensitive, can't handle contrary opinions etc. Rather than discuss the matter civilly, Keri has persistently attacked me and accused me of bad faith.

    In my very first interaction, I am accused of "POV pushing". Despite the fact that I have engaged in discussion, I am slapped with a template and reported for edit warring. Upon being advised by an admin to assume good faith, he says "As MaxBrowne clearly does not wish to engage in discussion - merely roll up, push POV, edit war to maintain it, then fuck off into the sunset again - that is not particularly helpful." - again a clear personal attack and assumption of bad faith. On being advised that no violation took place, he denies that my attempts at discussion were substantive with another offensive suggestion that my edits were disruptive and "pointy" just because I just because I substituted a NPOV template to cover the whole article, not just the lead. I noted this and reminded him yet again of AGF.

    After more unpleasantness I advise them that I intend to disengage. They respond with further personal attacks. In reporting me for edit warring again, the incivility continues - I am accused of withdrawing "in a huff" and of "gaming the system", an accusation gratuitously repeated here. I made it clear at this point that I was fed up with this user's persistent personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and battleground behaviour. However I was blocked for 3 days (reduced to 24 hours) for a technical 3RR violation while his incivility went unpunished.

    After a post on the talk page in which I severely criticized one of the sources used, without engaging in discussion at all (unlike DynaGirl) they immediately attack me personally, accusing me of "clutching at straws" and "threatening" me with an article ban. This is followed by gloating at my block for 3RR. I then issued a final warning to cease the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. The response was "AGF is not a suicide pact", whatever that means.

    Concerning the disputed source, having made no headway in my discussions with DynaGirl (Keri did not participate) I raised my concerns with the source at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I was advised that the issue was related to NPOV rather than RS, as GQ is "considered a reliable source" (for how to match your shoes with your Armani suit maybe!). Accordingly I raised the issue at the NPOV noticeboard, and advised the users DynaGirl and Keri of it as required. Keri [1] responds with more snark and more bad faith accusations. No I'm not "asking the other parent", in fact the editors at RSN were helpful and for the most part agreed with my position, but advised that RSN was not the correct venue. Keri then makes a copypasta to both noticeboards [2] & ([3], clearly disruptive and hindering actual discussion of the issue involved.

    This user has shown a consistent pattern of personalizing content disputes, personal attacks and assuming bad faith over the past two weeks, and has continued with this behaviour even after a final warning. This must stop. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @MaxBrown:Just out of interest, why have you listed this on 3 different noticeboards in the last 5 hours or so? You've brought this matter up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, at the Neutral POV noticeboard, and now here. And there's the ongoing discussion at the article's Talk page. Couldn't things be solved there? Yintan  14:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is concerned with the behaviour of the person concerned and is separate from the content dispute. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to wait for both sides to state their view on this before I can. I respect that Max feels personally attacked, and don't think it's my right to say whether they are or not. For a start, I think there are two actions to do away with – the use of "Fuck off" (by both users) and the templates. The former just doesn't get you anywhere, period. As for the latter, WP:DTTR, while merely an essay, does have good points, and templating just causes more animosity. Max, if you don't want to be templated, you might wish to put the {{DTM}} template on your talk page. I have it on mine. In fact, to be honest, it might be better to just stop leaving each other messages, for now, at least. As far as the actual dispute on the Generation Snowflake article is concerned, noticeboard threads might be making things worse, so maybe an RfC might be of use? Linguist Moi? Moi. 15:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More snark, and an apparent refusal to respond when called to account for his behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to comment as I responded at the original RSN post (as did Masem who concurred) - GQ is reliable for the opinion of a GQ writer, which was how the content was cited and used in the article. *Should* the material be in the article was an UNDUE/NPOV issue, so asking at the NPOV noticeboard for further guidance should not be held against Max. Max, generally in cases like these its best to try and detach from interacting directly with the other party once you have brought it to the attention of other editors. Duck's back etc etc. Its clearly not forumshopping if people have pointed you to the relevant place. Give it a day or so for some more editors to opine at NPOV and go from there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The RS/NPOV stuff will no doubt sort itself out with more eyes. But the civility/assumption of bad faith stuff....this is what I'm raising on this board. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note:This case was twice archived by bot without being addressed. Adding this note to avoid that again. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Considering MaxBrowne keeps pulling this out of archives, I figured I’d comment as another editor on that page. In my experience, MaxBrowne is actually the disruptive force on the page. I’ve seen Keri express frustration with what comes across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT editing and I’ve seen Keri be blunt on the talk page, but Keri does not edit the article disruptively, while MaxBrowne’s edits to the article often do seem confrontational and aggressive. Max has suggested above that Keri filed a nuisance edit warring report on him, but this isn’t what occurred. MaxBrowne made at least 6 reverts to the Generation Snowflake article in 24hrs [4]. Additionally, I’ve seen Max make reverts with misleading or inaccurate edit summary, such as this one [5] which leads other editors to think he removed an external link when he actually removed an internal see also link. Also, Max seems to have a weird habit of manipulating the talk page comments of other users on various notice board entries regarding Generation Snowflake, via hatting the comments of others, which seems kind of disruptive. [6], [7], [8], [9]--DynaGirl (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't agree with Dynagirl's characterization of my edits but I won't get into specifics right now, I want admin attention to this. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bumping thread for 3 days. Linguist Moi? Moi. 12:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Too long, didn't read - Maybe just bumping the thread to keep it from being archived isn't a useful way to get administrative action. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue has not disappeared. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You want administrative action? You're about to get some via boomerang. There is no need to put a 30-day timestamp on this section. If you restore it again, I'll block you myself for disruption. Katietalk 03:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that this is annoying, but so is the lack of action. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been AFd'd for the 2nd time. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Earflaps - accusations of being an undisclosed paid editor and a sock puppet

    Nobody has disputed the allegations and Earflaps has been blocked as a sock, so I am hatting this part. A huge clean up is still required though (I am OP) SmartSE (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I have dual concerns about Earflaps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being an undisclosed paid editor and a sockpuppet of MusicLover650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked in 2012. They have created > 400 articles and expanded an undetermined number, racking up 45k edits in total. They deny both accusations [10] [11] and have countered accusing me of wikihounding and turning the question of paid editing back on User:Alexbrn [12]. Since these are both behavioural issues where there will never be certainty, I'm coming here to to present the evidence and gather wider opinions, both as to where you lie on the accusations and the course of action.

    I came across Earflaps at Daniel Amen which has had a problem with paid/COI editors of various forms trying to whitewash it, for at least 6 years since I first edited it. Most recently, in July 27century made edits after disclosing their COI but they were swiftly reverted. Earflaps arrived at the article and began edit warring to tag it as un-neutral, followed by posting an extensive draft on the talk page, giving considerable weight to a single source and using Amen's website extensively: see this section on the TP. So far nothing especially untoward, but something didn't seem quite right to me, and given the history of COI at the article, I wondered what else they write about.

    Nick Lovegrove really set off alarm bells - there's nothing overtly promotional about it, but I doubt that the subject is notable, they have just published their first book and the article relies extensively on primary sources. James Quincey is notable, but again the article uses primary sources very extensively and as can be seen from the edit I made, contained considerable puff. I asked Brianhe (talk · contribs) for a second opinion, which led to us to collating a (incomplete) list of articles that fit patterns we repeatedly in COI editing, namely creating articles about obscure companies and barely-notable or non-notable business people. Particular highlights include OrthoAccel Technologies and Cardiac Dimensions where new medical devices where given glowing reviews using the companies' press releases as sources. I find the use of primary sources particularly strange, since at the Amen article they were adamant that "liberal tabloid" sources critical of the subject were not reliable: [13] [14]. What could make an editor have such double standards about sourcing? (Note that the first two articles were created in the last month, so it's not that they have changed over time).

    This might not be 100 % convincing yet, but then I examined their very first edits and I think I found very convincing evidence of sockpuppetry:

    Sock puppetry

    MusicLover650 was blocked for sockpuppetry on 7 April 2012, just 2 days before Earflaps registered. Unfortunately there wasn't an SPI and I haven't been able to find any discussions that led to the CU by User:MuZemike, who is now not very active. This version of Sledge Leather was written by MusicLover650 and G5d when they were blocked. In June 2012, Earflaps recreated the article at a different title, using almost exactly the same content. They claim to have found it on the web somewhere, although I cannot find any evidence that this would have been possible. There are other crossovers as well e.g. ML creates redirect, EF creates article. ML updates, EF adds new developments. ML makes large expansion, ML updates. MusicLover560 mainly created music bios, of which Earflaps has also created numerous examples, but others like EZGenerator and FL Studio Mobile fit the paid editing modus operandi as well.

    What I find most convincing of all though, is that from their very first edit they used an unusual referencing format of {{reflist|refs= etc....}} just like MusicLover650 did: [15]. When most newbies struggle to even use ref tags, how come Earflaps was using this overly-complicated method?

    I'm as convinced as I can be that Earflaps is a paid editor and also that they are a sock of MusicLover, but I appreciate that I could be wrong, so please let's hear your comments. If I am right, the contribution surveyor makes for scary viewing. SmartSE (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If the user is creating articles based on content they found online without attribution than we also have an issue of copyright infringement.
    Have deleted the page The Sledge/Leather Project as it was created without proper attribution of the original authors or the origin of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    These two accounts use very very similar referencing style.
    They take part of the url, typically a short text segment, use "ref name" tags, and collect all the refs at the end of the article. They put quotes around the names.
    Here is MusicLover650 from 2012[16]
    Here is Earflaps[17] from 2012. And this is the first edit they every made[18]. Yes that is correct one edit created this. Fully linksed. Refs formatted in MusicLover650's usual style. External links, infobox, and categories and everything. They were clearly not a new editor.
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And looking at MusicLover650's first edits and they obviously were not a new user either. This was their second still live edit.[19] There first live edit was deleted G11 for being advertising and was 11,751 bytes in one go. Hum Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Found more evidence.

    1) So not only do we have MusciLover650 failing to finish the "Sledge Leather" job they were also working on the "Blake Morgan" job[20] when they were indeffed as a sockpuppet. They uploaded this picture of Morgan on April 1st 2012[21]

    2) User:Earflaps is than created and recreates the "Sledge Leather" page and keeps it up and makes the money. They on September 28, 2012 also uploads an image called "BlakeMorganPublicity"[22] which has since been deleted due to copyright problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Opened a SPI here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I have reviewed this editor's article creations as SmartSE stated, and have found a pattern that fits the undisclosed paid contributor profile to a T, especially so in 2015-2016 with a steady stream of creations on corporate entities, CEOs, financial advisors, medical device companies, and the like -- nearly three dozen articles that appear just like those of a paid contributor in those two years. This point of view hasn't been made public until now; however, Earflaps accuses me here in the of being part of a cabal out to get him, related in some way I can't explain to the Daniel Amen kerfluffle. So I'd like to say for the record that I find this accusation inappropriate and wildly non-germane to the AfD in which it occurred, just as if it was intended to deflect attention from the content of his contributions. Otherwise, I agree with SmartSE's analysis and conclusion and find the editor's flat denial to be in no way credible.
    Additionally, if anyone should doubt that American/UK music promoters exist which advertise their Wikipedia article writing prowess, see this and this. - Brianhe (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The circumstantial evidence points convincingly to this being a case of undisclosed paid editing, yet Earflaps says they are not paid. It is theoretically possible the editor takes a keen interest in out-of the-way medical device companies and obscure US businessmen and likes building puffy articles about them scratched-up from the meagrest and/or unreliable sources, but I find it hard to conceive that's really what's happening. If we look at Tommy Hilfiger, before Earflap's involvement[23] this contained some criticism about alleged "sweatshop conditions" and a court settlement, yet this was apparently moved[24] to the Tommy Hilfiger (company) article. In fact, looking at the dated edits this "move" never happened – strangely, the "controversies" were added by anothed editor, Stray.Child[25] before being "respectfully" massaged-in by Earflaps[26]. Stray.Child is almost certainly another WP:SOCK, since in their few edits thay also overlap with Earflaps at Hell & Heaven Metal Fest. After Earflap's subsequent work the company's article now has a "Corporate responsibility" section which is not so much "criticism" as a paean to the superb ethics of the Hillfiger corporation, heavily sourced to the company's own material. In other words, a pretty slick PR whitewashing job has apparently been done.
    While the community can siteban Earflaps on the basis of the volume of WP:QUACKing, the reach of this is so big (e.g. Earflaps has worked on the The Coca-Cola Company article, which suggests this may be a high-profile PR outfit) I would hope it was something WMF legal would pursue to get some real-world traction on. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol - if all my edits are obviously paid, how come you are the first people to bring me to ANI ever? I see even more now why most other large posters dont' seem to stick around long - they get hounded off the website. I regularly clean up crap pages and have probably interacted with hundreds upon hundreds of banned puppets by now - going through the list and picking one I seem to have some similarities to is cherry picking evidence to the extreme, as far as I am concerned. And where is your analysis of all my beautiful festival pages, for example? Out of all my edits, you only seem interested in the corporations and biographies I've bothered bringing to (basically) good quality. This whole thing is ridiculous. Posting big pages and touching controversy sections is not some hard proof of COI puppetry, just of nerdy dedication with ocd tendencies. The Tommy Hilfiger page, for example, is incredibly high-profile - and yet not a single editor disagreed with me on a single point on that whole page, because my edits were awesome and sensible.

    I would like to point out that BrianSE has been hounding me for the last day, first with a trivial and easily removed speedy deletion tag on a stub from years ago, and then a deletion discussion on one of my page creations where he smears my neutrality with no diffs or evidence, excluding the vague arguments that "its big" and "low-level executive" (evidently not bothering to look at my editing history prior to that posting, or he would have seen exactly how I happened upon the topic in the first place). Also, Alexbrn was just a week or so ago involved in an edit war with me, which ended in me bringing him to the noticeboard and getting the page where he encountered me (Daniel Amen) frozen for a week - over a simple balance tag! And Doc contacted me in private to ask if I was a paid editor within hours of BearSE's first accusations - I assume he noticed the issue on BearSE's talk page and jumped on the bandwagon. Or, maybe a sockuppet of BearSE himself, lol, if we're just going to town with speculation. Nah, I don't actually think that about BearSE. See, I respect the contributions of my peers in the spirit of AFG, and don't like to drag their reputations through the mud, without absolutely no conclusive evidence of anything, just to protect a pet page. Earflaps (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "How come you are the first people to bring me to ANI ever?" Nobody has said that all of your edits are paid. I guess I'm the first to connect all of the dots, but back in 2012 User:Bilby added a COI tag to one of your first creations, User:Voceditenore raised concerns that Korliss Uecker contained unsourced personal info (presumably obtained direct from the subject). More recently, your rewrite of Hampton Creek was branded "a terrible, terrible article written by the company's pr department" by User:Exeunt. I imagine there are other examples. SmartSE (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I have criticism. Have you seen how many pages I've written? Here's a question - don't you find it odd, that in all of my edits, this is all you have to criticize me with? Korliss Uecker was tagged undoutably because I was a new account, which all experienced editors tend to treat with suspicion. I assume the "unsourced personal information" was something harmless found on a blog or other website that I didn't source correctly - unless you have any evidence to the contrary? Maybe there are other "mishaps" from 2012 you'd like to try and dredge up? Earflaps (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's moot now that Earflaps has been indeffed by User:Someguy1221 for socking, but... His assertion that this material about the subject's family in Korliss Uecker was widely available on the internet and he had just used the wrong source for the citation beggars belief. I searched for it myself before deleting it from the article. And it wasn't tagged because he was a new editor, it came to my attention because I monitor all new opera-related articles. The MO is also classic paid editing, and not just this article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    There is sufficient on evidence on Wikipedia of promotional editing and a long history of the same. I would like to proposal a community ban. Cleanup will of course time and likely all this editor's edits need to be reviewed. Post any dealing with medicine to WT:MED for our review. Reviewing their edits pertaining to medicine was what raised my concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. This is the twilight zone, I swear to god. I understand duck hunting is a noble sport, but shooting every goose, grebe, and swan in sight is egregious overkill. I don't even know what to say - the allegations and suppositions are so outlandish at this point I'm flabbergasted. Paid to work for billionaires and multi-billion conglomerates? If I'm paid to work for billionaires, why the world do I live in a basement? There is no consensus in this ANI that I am some sort of shill, excluding editors who have an obvious bone to grind because of that singular tag I dared add to Amen's page - so why on earth are people taking the initiative to tag every single major semi-large or large project I've done (hundreds I might add), with no actual evidence of COI except conjecture? Does WP:Wikihounding literally mean nothing here? The Amen posse needs to start acting civilized, and do their due diligence before brutally attacking editors for the simple "crime" of posting big pages. I note that none of them are bringing up the many cases where I added controversies and negative information, which, I might add, I do regularly. I'll be requesting assistance at the harrassment noticeboard, to ensure Brianhe, Smartse, and Alexbrn don't destroy years of volunteer hours for no good reason. Earflaps (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns have nothing to do with the Amen page. It is the medical articles you have written the cause my concerns.
    Also that your editing style is basically the same as that of sock puppet User:MusicLover650 and you recreated work of that account without attribution. And this was your first edit[27] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Provisional support for community ban. Smoke from the gun obscures the sun. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    2. Comment user was indeffed at SPI here[28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Ban the user for violation fo the terms of use. Delete all articles created by the user and plausible socks. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Support community ban. This degree of sockpuppetry, promotional editing and disruption by this user far outweighs any valuable contributions he has made for this project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Support I spend quite a bit of time at New Editor Contributions and the paid/promotional edits are easy to spot. I would have been 50/50 in favour of a temporary restriction if the editor hadn't brazenly denied everything despite the obvious nature of his edits. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Strike this - the editor has been Indef Blocked as a sock so it's moot. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Ban - a community ban goes beyond a block in expressing the outrage of the community. Ban him. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Support obviously. SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Support. MER-C 06:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Support. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CesareAngelotti

    CesareAngelotti is likely also a sock: see for example their efforts at Gigi Levy-Weiss, which are stylistically the same as Earflaps' (Levy-Weiss is an executive at a company whose articles Earflaps edited). As doc said the editor is (semi-) sophisticated so a checkuser might not tally. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Zanglazor is the one who created the underlying ref style but is no longer active. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have initiated discussion at WT:CSD on the addition of a new General criterion for material created in violation of the terms of use. I have also forked COI to {{Undisclosed paid}}, as there is a substantial and important difference between the (often naive) involvement of, say, an employee of a company, and systematic, cynical abuse of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for these Guy. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking into the possibility of developing an AI system to help detect returning users for CU follow up. This would not only help with serial undisclosed paid sock puppets but disruptive user who harass other Wikipedians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Huge clean up still required

    Guy has taken care of some of the page creations per G5, but there are still many article expansions that require attention, to either revert per WP:EVASION or clean up if other edits have taken place after Earflaps' edits. I have only gotten through the first 5 pages of so of the contrib survey and only listed non-musical articles in User:Brianhe/COIbox43, most of which have not been edited. There are huge amounts of content remaining. Should we move Brianhe's subpage to WP:LTA? How have we gotten more people involved in previous cases like OrangeMoody? SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Over 9000 articles edited? It's going to be a big job. How do we coordinate this? John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps list them all at a page that's high traffic for those who can take care of it, but low traffic for everyone else? WP:AN comes to mind for some reason. Or make it a sub-task of a bot's to nab them all from a list of all of the involved accounts and store it in a sub page. Quicker to list up to 200 users, compared to, say, 4,000 pages, right? Then people can view the list and approach the article as they see fit. MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 22:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Musashi miyamoto

    Informed on talk page here.

    Disruptive editing and incivility by ♥, a WP:SPA (technically, he posted some non-SPA in 2011, but his 2016 contributions have been SPA), mainly on the article RF resonant cavity thruster (aka the emdrive), a controversial invention. As background, the emdrive article is currently dominated by three emdrive proponents, two of whom (including Musashi) are WP:SPA.

    Musashi tried to introduce weakly-sourced and IMHO pseudoscientific content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RF_resonant_cavity_thruster&diff=prev&oldid=752493757), and has been edit-warring for months on and off (with sporadic support from the other two dominant page editors) to attempt to steamroller in the content without WP:CONSENSUS, for example: [29][30][31]). Continued despite a warning on the article talk page [32] and two warnings on his talk page. Claims there is WP:CONSENSUS for change, despite active discussion and multiple skeptical editors objecting to it on reasoned grounds. (To be fair, I'm the only page editor currently actively trying to revert that particular weakly-sourced addition, but other editors have raised objections on Talk about the addition!) Again to be fair, the three most active editors are pro-emdrive and in favor of inclusion, but my understanding is that WP:CONSENSUS doesn't work that way, especially on WP:FRINGE pages. If my understanding is incorrect, please correct me! To be clear, my complaint filed here is about Musashi's behavior, not the other two main pro-emdrive editors.

    In addition, Musashi consistently exhibits non-civil behavior, for example:

    • According to Guy/Jzg, an admin, Musashi wrongly accused Guy of vandalism; Guy's warning is here: [33]. I don't have a diff for whatever actual incident Guy alludes to. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • [34] Apparently not taking Guy's warning to heart, called my edits "vandalism".
    • [35] Possibly in retaliation for my placing edit-warring warnings on his Talk page, opened a section on my Talk page titled "Belligerent Editing".
    • [36] Accused me of "slandering" the IBTimes and the authors of the paper he's trying to include.

    Also, Musashi is IMHO tendentiously helping block inclusion of well-sourced material:

    • [37] The Washington Post publishes the uncontroversial statement that "Most scientists are skeptical" of the emdrive. Musashi (along with the two other main pro-emdrive editors) argues against the change to the WP:LEDE, insisting on watering it down to something like "Many scientists are skeptical". This seems to me tendentious. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I must interject here. As has been pointed out to Rolf many times, while the Washington Post does use 'most scientists', National Geographic uses 'many physicists' (the current source for that attribution in the article). Rolf has not pointed out why the WP should be a better source than Nat Geo, and aside from Rolf, nearly all editors agreed through a discussion on the talk page that 'many' was the correct choice. Calling MM's support of this 'tendentious' is beyond disingenuous.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I echo Rolf's comments. I would suggest that in the first instance the user is restricted from making edits directly to that article, and potentially is topic banned altogether. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This user opinions on this subject cannot be considered as being objective, because this user has personal grudge against me since the time when I have shown that he abused his power and was unfair (more on this in my reply to Rolf H Nelson below)Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear admins, I can't help but guess I am the other account accused by Rolf of being a "WP:SPA" (I am a indeed a relatively new account but that has contributed a fair amount to other articles here, here , here, and am drafting a new article here). I appreciate Rolf has highlighted that he is not raising the complaint about myself or InsertCleverPhrase, but I would like to raise some points: It seems reasonably clear that Rolf has his own POV on the emdrive issue (""the emdrive doesn't work" is an objective fact") and that the reported incident here appears to be motivated to advance that POV on the page rather then tackle underlying breaches of policy. There is extensive coverage of the topics being debated on the talk page: notably the "most/many scientists" controversy in the lede, and the underlying science (a purported "Casimir-like effect') behind the drive. From what I see there is a healthy debate on the talk page, and the editing on the main page merely reflects that debate. There are die-hard opponents and proponents on both sides, both of which seem incapable of compromise.--Sparkyscience (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sparkyscience Correct, you're the other SPA editor I was referring to. The three articles you list as having contributed to, zero-point energy, De Broglie–Bohm theory, and electrodynamics all relate to the emdrive or fringe theories advanced to justify the emdrive; thus SPA. Many accounts, despite being SPA or initially SPA, are nevertheless still WP:Here to build an encyclopedia, in which case we're happy to have you here. As for being new, welcome aboard; we were all new editors once, and I'm sorry your initial experience editing Wikipedia is encountering difficulty. Yes, there is debate on the talk page[38] that blocked the change to "most scientists are skeptical", sourced to the Washington Post[39]; I consider the blocking of the edit tendentious, and understand that the people blocking the change obviously do not consider their arguments tendentious. I'm sorry you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the motivation behind this ANI post, hopefully that won't prevent us from working together to improve the RF resonant cavity thruster article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Admins, apparently user Rolf H Nelson considers that attack is the best form of defense, that is why he created this entry in which he twists everything round and distorts the facts. He falsely accuses of alleged wrongdoings not only me but also other editors of that article like Sparkyscience[[40]], to which Sparkyscience replied: "The irony is not lost on me that it appears to be you who is deleting other peoples contributions and that most other editors do not agree with your preferred version of the page. Any particular reason why you copy and pasted this warning on my and Musashi miyamoto but not InsertCleverPhrase talk page seeing as we have all done the same thing? I agree this needs to go to DR.--Sparkyscience (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"[reply]
      I and several (at least 3 others) other editors merely have been reverting his obvious vandalism. In particular, there has been already reached the consensus twice regarding [[41]], yet he repeatedly ignores that and is pushing his own POV by removing indiscriminately multiple times (about a dozen times) without any good reason the whole sections of the article against the consensus previously reached - this is a seriously disruptive editing, it is in fact vandalism, because it became evident that his motivations have been other than to improve Wikipedia, his removal of the whole sections of the article were not good-faith editions. In order for a disruptive editing to be considered non-vandalism, there must be seen any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to core content policies of neutral point of view is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia and therefore constitutes to be vandalism. I suppose that we all assumed good-faith editions by Rolf H Nelson at the beginning, but evidently repetitive removal without a good reason of the whole sections without waiting to reach a new consensus and ignoring the previous consensus, and ignoring most of the valid points, which successfully rebut his unfounded opinions, show that his intentions are not to improve Wikipedia. His overall behavior in fact shows that he is trolling, because despite being the culprit he dares to falsely accuse victims of his trolling and takes unfounded actions against them unscrupulously lying and distorting the facts. It is quite apparent that he gains satisfaction from such disruptive and cunning behavior like all trolls do.
    Sparkyscience said to Rolf H Nelson in the talk page of the article: "It should be self evident looking at the talk page that not everybody agrees with your POV, but nonetheless your view has already been taken into consideration with the correct moderation, by clearly stating that many scientists believe it to be impossible and classify it as pseudoscience. Attributed quotes stating that the majority of the scientific community believe such devices as impossible belong in the body not the lede. The lede should be objective and not portray opinions as facts. The other editors are under no obligation to accept your demands for a false compromise that you offer on your own terms to remove the NPOV tag. Continuing to hold the page hostage until you "win" just betrays the fact you are wedded to own ideas. Accusing the other editors of being disruptive while deleting whole sections indiscriminately is clearly hypocritical and unhelpful. You also consistently seem uninterested in addressing or giving specific criticism to the proposed underlying scientific theory by which the device works: Let me ask again - where does the energy of the Casimir effect come from? and is it possible in principle to transfer momentum from the electromagnetic field to matter and under what constraints?--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)"
    Also confirmed by Insertcleverphrasehere who said to Rolf H Nelson the follwing: "Know when to give up, the majority won't always agree with you, even if you argue ad nauseam. You clearly have a POV to push here, try to exercise some self control. I realise that you don't like that the mainstream media keeps being overly positive about these tests, but thats what the sources are, for better or worse.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"
    Now, let's move to the other points in his false accusations:
    • WP:SPA - this accusation is so ridiculous, I do edit also other languages wikipedias, and I do not always login when edit, because the only thing I care is improving Wikipedia, while it seems that some other editors also like to brag how many edits they did. I do not know how many edits altogether I did in en Wikipedia and other Wikipedias, because it never mattered to me, but certainly more than my logged editions here show. Probably I do not edit as often as some other editors for various reasons, including time constraints, however, there is noting wrong with that. I only edited Emdrive while being logged only because my web browser or wikipedia site remembered me all the time when I was returning to see again the article, and because of that I have been doing all Emdrive editions while being logged. I note that this is also the first time ever, since I began editing Wikipedia many years ago, that I met so much belligerent and unfair editor as Rolf H Nelson.
    • Musashi tried to introduce weakly-sourced and IMHO pseudoscientific content - not true, the consensus on the talk page was that it is a well sourced input[[42]], not different in any way from other inputs. All papers which are in included in the article, just like this one, were published in peer reviewed journals and had multiple secondary sources. If this one is to be removed then all other hypotheses would have to be removed as well, because there is no difference between them regarding weight and sources (all peer-reviewed and all with the same or similar multiple secondary sources).
      Also I replied to Rolf H Nelson on the article talk page as follows and he did not comment it in any way:

    It can be said about all or most of the hypotheses presented here (except perhaps measurements errors). So why would you challenge this one and not the other ones? I have to repeat myself again: "There is no difference between the position of this hypothesis and all the others. All of them have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and subsequently debated in popular press. This is not up to Wikipedia users to decide which one is correct one and which one is not. You have no qualification for that, unless you published a rebuttal in a scientific peer-reviewed paper - but even then the hypothesis should not be deleted, but merely an information about rebuttal paper added. However, no such rebuttal paper has been published in this case." So there are no reasons to remove this hypothesis - if you remove this hypothesis then all the others would have to be removed as well. They are all equal in a sense that they all have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs, and all have been published in secondary sources.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

    All of my edits were to improve Wikipedia, and all of them were done in accordance with Wikipedia polices, and all other active editors of that article confirmed that. When someone attempted to add not well enough sourced new hypothesis (it was not published in a per review paper, but only in an article in a magazine) I and only I requested that it should be removed due to breaking WP:RS policy. Those users who are war editing now (in particular Rolf H Nelson), have not requested this, even though there was a good reason for that, which shows that they are not objective regarding using WP policies. In fact I pointed out their hypocrisy to them then: "Where are those editors eagerly reversing inputs now? What did happen that they allow a hypothesis without a scientific paper to be included in a Wikipedia article?"[[43]] I reached a consensus with the author of that not well sourced input and he agreed with me that it should be deleted and he deleted it.[[44]] So all this shows that I am objective and constructive, I can and do achieve consensus with reasonably behaving editors, and that I do follow all those Wikipedia polices, which I am aware of, in order to improve Wikipedia, but unfortunately that cannot be said about the belligerent users such as Rolf H Nelson and to a lesser extent also JzG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musashi miyamoto (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • and has been edit-warring for months on and off Not true. I started editing Emdrive article on 6th of December 2016[[45]]. I have always been logged when editing this article and never edited this article before. It is Rolf H Nelson who is edit warring and other editors agree with me.
    • (with sporadic support from the other two dominant page editors) Not true. It was the other way around.[[46]] First Tokamac, Sparkyscience and Insertcleverphrasehere have been reverting disruptive blanking of the whole sections by Rolf H Nelson. So there have been three editors before me reverting Rolf H Nelson disruptive edits and I began supporting them, as the fourth editor, only when it became apparent that what Rolf H Nelson is doing is vandalism (that these were not good-faith edits), and when it became apparent that those three other editors had hard time coping with the malicious, indriscriminate, repetitious removal of the whole sections of the article by Rolf H Nelson against the consensus reached twice amongst active editors on the article talk page.
    • Continued despite a warning on the article talk page [165] and two warnings on his talk page Not true, there was only one false warning (which by the way I did not see for some time). As already other editors pointed out this is all part of pushing his POV against the consensus. When his vandalism did not work, because the 4 editors were firmly against him and none from the active editors supported him, he eventually stopped vandalising and instead started this phoney war accusing falsely other editors, while the evidence shows that he is the culprit. Also he ignored multiple requests from other editors of taking the matter to DR or RS, as other editors multiple time suggested to him, which he has not done yet, and which additionally shows that he is not interested in any compromise, he is not interested in improving this Wikipedia article, he is only interested in personal attacks against editors. Also I note that I did not notice his phoney warning on the article talk page (which was not directed personally to me), because he inserted it after the references.
    • Claims there is WP:CONSENSUS for change, despite active discussion and multiple skeptical editors objecting to it on reasoned grounds. Not true, there was achieved twice the consensus among active editors. Editor InsertCleverPhraseHere replied to Rolf H Nelson on the article talk page as follows: "Still, none of this explains why you unilaterally removed the section under discussion here, citing the need to get consensus before inclusion. A huge discussion has been undertaken here regarding that section, and consensus seems to have formed that the material merits inclusion. I really don't understand why you decided that removal and more talk was the right option here. If you believe the material does not merit inclusion, perhaps you should say so here, as the points you have raised above don't really apply as we DO have reliable secondary sources reporting on this.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)"
      The views of those two who became inactive had been rebutted and they did not object, so it had to be assumed that they agreed with rebuttals. Rolf H Nelson at that time did not participate in the discussion on the talk page, but instead started his disruptive war editing, even though he had been told multiple times by at least 4 different editors that what he is doing is wrong and disruptive. For some unknown reason (probably to show that there is allegedly less editors against his views than there really are) Rolf H Nelson has not included here Tokamac who also reverted his disruptive blanking of the whole sections of the article; it is also not clear why Rolf H Nelson chose me as his main victim of his trolling attempts, although it seem likely that he did this in retaliation for leaving the warning on his talk page in an attempt to stop his disruptive editing.
    • According to Guy/Jzg, an admin, Musashi wrongly accused Guy of vandalism; Guy's warning is here: [166].) I did not know at that time that vandalism on Wikipedia has more narrow meaning than dictionary meaning. However, what Guy/Jzg did would not be vandalism only if we assume good-faith editing, and I am not so sure that it was such editing when considering his further disruptive edits, because he did not explain the reasons neither of that first edit and later ones (he later removed twice china.com link as the source and he did not explain why he did it). Also Guy/Jzg is using two different usernames, apparently he is using Jzg for disruptive editing and Guy when talking to editors. He knows very well that editors cannot know that he is an admin when he edits as Jzg, because there is not information on his page about that, and yet he told me "don't accuse administrators of vandalism", even though I had not chance of knowing that he is an admin. Then he threatened me in such a way that it looked as abuse of his power and was simply unfair. No matter who he is he should follow Wikipedia policies (he was not) and as an admin be particularly friendly to other editors (he was not to me), being an admin he should shine to others as an example and not behave like he did.
    • Apparently not taking Guy's warning to heart, called my edits "vandalism". Because they are vandalism as already explained in details above. I made only two major additions to the article, and I did not expect when I added them that there will be any problems, because these were good edits with good sources added in agreement with all Wikipedia policies. Other editors later changed the text of my editions to other equivalent texts and I did not complain. But what Rolf H Nelson was doing by repeatedly (about a dozen times) removing indiscriminately whole sections without a good reason and against the consensus reached in the talk page was simply wrong. I improve Wikipedia by adding good, reliable, sourced content, so I create the content, while all Rolf H Nelson did was indiscriminate destruction - he was not improving Wikipedia, but destroying it for his own purposes, which seems to be a satisfaction from trolling other editors as well as administration by creating this entry instead of taking it to DR or RS, as other editors multiple time suggested to him, which he has not done yet, and which additionally shows that he is not interested in any compromise, he is not interested in improving this Wikipedia article, he is only interested in trolling here, because he just does not like the article and apparently the editors who disagree with him.
    • Possibly in retaliation for my placing edit-warring warnings on his Talk page, opened a section on my Talk page titled "Belligerent Editing". Considering his notoriously belligerent behaviour I believe that we all here can only regret that such a warning has not being issued earlier. We can see on this example how he is trolling, when he put, for a false reason, a warning on my talk page it is not according to him non-civil behavior, but when I duly put a warning on his talk page to attempt to stop his war editing against the consensus, then suddenly it is allegedly non-civil behavior according to him - such hypocrisy and perfidy is not helpful to anyone.
    • Accused me of "slandering" the IBTimes and the authors of the paper he's trying to include. Because that is what he did, he said without a good reason on the article talk page about many times awarded International Business Times that "ibtimes historically has a reputation for clickbait" and regarding the authors of the paper "I think the physicist would've said "reading this paper was a waste of my precious time on Earth"."
      Again he was proved to be wrong by other editors, and ignored it:

    "The peer-reviewers (presumably physicists) who reviewed the article obviously didn't think it was 'utter nonsense', or else they would not have approved it. Your personal opinion of the validity of the paper's theoretical musings is very unimportant to establishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Rather this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason for the deletion of the section. Specifically why, what policies, is the section in clear violation of?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)"

    • Also, Musashi is IMHO tendentiously helping block inclusion of well-sourced material:) All I said in that section was this: "Arguments of Insertcleverphrasehere are convincing here. 'Many' is a better choice than 'most'" There is nothing wrong with that. That is in fact a correct way of discussing the issues.

    As you can see from the whole evidence Rolf H Nelson is a belligerent, not objective editor uninterested in compromise and pushing his own POV, he is doing it probably to satisfy his trolling needs, he is uninterested in improving this wikipedia article; during the whole December 2016 he was only removing the whole sections from the article without a good reason and against the consensus, he was destructive, he did not add any new content on merit, while I was constructive and improved Wikipedia by adding new, good, well sourced content, and other active users agreed with me.

    What Rolf H Nelson is doing is greatly discouraging users like me to improve Wikipedia, because not every user has time, stamina and will to struggle here with trolls and other belligerent users. Many will give up and Wikipedia content will suffer as the result.
    For those and other reasons such belligerent behavior as Rolf H Nelson presented when disruptively editing that article and when interacting with other editors, and falsely accusing them of wrongdoings, should not be tolerated, therefore I kindly request to ban Rolf H Nelson for considerable amount of time or at least restrict his access to that article, so that he could not disruptively edit that article again. Kind Regards Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    With such attitude you should not be an admin, really. Shame on you.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you aren't aware that in colloquial English usage, putting a word in so-called "scare quotes" is to intimate that one is being sarcastic, and most probably means exactly the opposite of what seems to be saying. Thus, when Guy says "I don't have a problem discouraging you from 'improving' Wikipedia," what he really means is that your edits have not been improvements, and that being the case he has no problem discouraging you from editing, as doing so will help the encyclopedia from being debased in quality. This is an attitude which is not antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia in any way, shape or form: we should all -- admins and rank-and-file editors alike -- work towards improving the project, which means removing edits which do not improve it. We are here to build an encyclopedia, you seem to be here to push a particular point of view about a project which contravenes the laws of physics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think that this is the case only in colloquial English usage, but also regular language usage, and not only English. However, admins should not be sarcasting against ordinary users - this is not polite. Particularly when such sarcasm is unsubstantiated (i.e. when it is false and groundless), like in this case. This particular admin does not behave like an admin would, and not even as a decent ordinary user would, as already described in more details above (so I am not going to repeat myself here). All of my edits were to improve Wikipedia, and all of them were done in accordance with Wikipedia polices, and all other active editors of that article confirm that. It is not true that "you seem to be here to push a particular point of view about a project which contravenes the laws of physics". I have not been doing such a thing. If you still think otherwise please prove it.
    Also when someone attempted to add not well enough sourced new hypothesis (it was not published in a per review paper, but only in an article in a magazine) I and only I requested that it should be removed due to breaking WP:RS policy. Those users who are war editing now, have not requested this, even though there was a good reason for that, which shows that they are not objective regarding using WP policies. In fact I pointed out their hypocrisy to them then: "Where are those editors eagerly reversing inputs now? What did happen that they allow a hypothesis without a scientific paper to be included in a Wikipedia article?"[[47]] I reached a consensus with the author of that not well sourced input and he agreed with me that it should be deleted and he deleted it.[[48]] So all this shows that I am objective and constructive, I can and do achieve consensus with reasonably behaving editors, and that I do follow all those Wikipedia polices, which I am aware of, in order to improve Wikipedia, but unfortunately that cannot be said about the belligerent users such as Rolf H Nelson and to a lesser extent also JzG. Merry Christmas. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins (or non-involved observers), please feel free to ping me in the event there's something in the wall of text above you believe I should address or respond to, or more broadly if you have advice on how I could have handled this in a way that might not have ended up having to bring someone to the ANI board. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must categorically disagree with the assertions of Rolf. He has personally attempted to remove the section in dispute 7 times! Been reverted by multiple other editors, including myself. He just doesn't like it and is belligerently hounding other editors simply following the sources (peer reviewed primary source with multiple editorially controlled secondary sources). The only thing I can agree with is that Musashi miyamoto should not have accused Rolf of vandalism, rather his behaviour is representative of edit warring and tendentious editing instead (so much so that I've considered taking it to the edit warring noticeboard). I recently informed MM of the precise meaning of the WP policy of this issue on their talk page, and to my knowledge the user in question has not used the wording since. As for the recent battleground that has developed on the article in question's talk page, this is entirely due to Rolf, and I have suggested multiple times that Rolf take it to dispute resolution, but he has declined, and rather has chosen to continue edit warring with the section in question. I also do not appreciate his timing on taking this to AN/I, as having to come on here and defend another user on Christmas day is not my idea of a good holiday. I also am a bit miffed that I was not even informed of this post until I was mentioned above. InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The status quo ante is non-inclusion; as I've said before, the onus is on you to take it to the boards; your argument that none of the profferred arguments against inclusion is valid, has been contradicted by multiple experience editors. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it is obvious that the one who should take it to the boards is the one that is arguing against the consensus developed among all other active editors. Do you expect me to prove a positive? Far more sensible for you to go to RS to prove a negative. Moreover, there is more than one secondary source. No other 'experinece editors' have brought up any policy argument as to why it should not be included, except 'editorial judgement' which is tantamount to simply saying WP:IGNOREALLRULES.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I think that MM could adopt less of a battleground approach to their editing, it certainly is not so bad as to deserve disciplinary action, and Rolf's behavior has been as bad or worse. The correct decision here would have been to take this to dispute resolution, not to attempt a witch hunt at AN/I against a new user. I suspect that Rolf thinks the later would have more success than the former, due to the vulnerability of new editors here at AN/I, and why he chose the course of action that he did. MM is making constructive edits, and Sparkyscience seems to be the most knowledgeable editor on the subject that we have, even if his additions are a bit voluminous at times (I don't mind paring down good edits). Neither of these editors has done anything to deserve disciplinary action.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On both occasions, MM doubled-down on his talk page in response to the warnings, that Guy and my editing 'were' vandalism, so I lack your optimism that MM is on the path to changing his ways. FWIW I would disagree and characterize Sparkyscience as a crank; I don't think it matters in this discussion, but you're the one who brought it up. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [49] 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 [50]. After insisting in adding comments skipping community input,[51] and having his own way again with an irregular false summary line [52][53], [54] (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). He is sometimes accompanied by ghostly editors. [55]

    The last straw, he comes back to his old habits, with a straight libel and misrepresention of mine [56]. 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 [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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) [64], [65] and altering the sources [66], it was a circus... Iñaki LL (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Timothy Well, I did add evidence in the cases cited above. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [67], 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 [68] and here [69], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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" [70]and "campaigner"[71] and claiming I have intervened in a "concerted" way[72] and telling me to go back where I came from[73]), and dismissing an academic source as dubious[74] just because WP:IJDLI, acting like he owns POV. I concur, as both have kind of admitted[75][76], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I have singled nobody as "campaigner" regarding the Basque Country yet. Iñaki did[77] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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.) [78]. 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 [79] 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 [80] and then I said this to make clear my position [81], 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 [82][83] even when User:Valenciano had just pointed the problems with Asilah1981's intervention [84][85], 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 [86]. 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 [[87], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Refractary indeed. Your honour, I rest my case.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gorilla warfare
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I specialize in random stuff. EEng 07:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, the Navy SWEALS, sea, Wikipedia, air and land forces. TimothyJosephWood 10:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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 [89], [90], [91]. 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) [92]), [93], [94], [95].
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    ??? Asilah edits in just about everything related to Spain and beyond, and especially in anything related to the period of Al-Andalus [96], [97],... Stop pinging me, it is annoying. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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: [98], in [99] and in [100]. 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)[reply]
    Confrontational... Your talk page is a personal attack. For the rest, no comment. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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!) [101],[102] (alteration of sources, check the attitude of Asilah1981), [103] (conspicuous absence of summary lines, an experienced editor?), plus this sequence, [104], [105], [106], [107] (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    @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)[reply]

    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 [108] (note the appalling quality of the evidence, self-incriminatory), [109] (I removed gross personal attack from my own talk page), [110] (again ,removed from my talk page per WP:HUSH]], etc. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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. WCMemail 19:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Wrongful accusation from Walter Görlitz

    Walter Görlitz has wrongfully accused me of blanking "Vancouver Whitecaps FC" and is refusing to apologise. All I want is for him to openly acknowledge that I did not blank the page or any part of the page at all. Cédric HATES TPP. 19:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI? REALLY??? EEng 19:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Here's the first of Cedric's edits that I saw on that article: kʰä̃nt̚ bi ðat̚ ˈdɪfɪˌkəɫt̚ tʊ weɪtʰ fɔ̝˞ˑ ə̃n əˈfɪʃəɫ əˈnaʊsmə̃nt̚ naʊ, kʰæ̃n ɪt? made 2016-12-18T20:22:03. And here is the second: səˈspɛk̚tʰɪ̆d̚ ˈvæ̃ndəɫlɪzə̆m made 2016-12-23T21:34:03‎. Does any of that make sense?
    You have taken "‎Voluntary Disappearance" (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Multiple problems with editor Cedric tsan cantonais). You're not here. If you are, then we get to address the issues that put you into that discussion: using diacritics in your edit summaries to make them illegible to most native English speakers and attacking anons. As we can see from those two reverts you made, neither have been addressed.
    So what exactly would you like me to apologize for Cedric? I didn't accuse you of blanking the Whitecaps article, but rather of removing valid material (duties shared between ... and Scott Rintoul) and attacking an anon. That was your second edit, and the first I reverted. Nothing to apologize for there Cedric. You messed up because you hate anonymous editors Cedric. The warning was level four because you took voluntary disappearance rather than face admin action or community sanction, yet you have not disappeared. I made it clear that your actions are unacceptable Cedric.
    At that point I wanted to see how active you had been, so I started digging deeper. That's when I found Cedric's other edits. You've been quite active for someone who has disappeared. If you were in a witness relocation programme, you would be sanctioned for your behaviour Cedric.
    No apology is forthcoming from me for warning you for your behaviour and for attacking anons. And for the record, your request should have gone to a different forum, not ANI (as EEng#s' comment alludes to), but since you started the discussion: I would like to suggest a site block in accordance with the earlier ANI discussion. Pinging those involved in the previous discussion: @Hijiri88:, @OpenFuture:, @In ictu oculi: Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Walter Görlitz: You're lucky I just happened across this, as your ping was malformed. By the way, you should not phrase it as "using diacritics in your edit summaries"; "using gibberish edit summaries" would be better, as it seems likely that the bad framing (as though this was a reinvigoration of the old "diacritic wars") was what confused In ictu oculi and others last time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like I need to make something clear:

    • Neither of those two summaries were attacks directed towards anyone, registered or not. I admit that I used to have a foul mouth towards IPs, but I had since stopped. All I did in those edits mentioned by Walter Görlitz was suggesting the editor to "wait for an official announcement". So that's yet another wrongful accusation from Walter Görlitz. Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, there can be no peace between the two of us.
    • Just because I used a German term does not mean I was referring to anyone as a Nazi, just like the fact that calling someone a "grammar Nazi" does not equal accusing someone of being a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
    • Those aren't diacritics. They're called suprasegmentals.

    Therefore, if I go down, Walter Görlitz needs to go down, too, for refusing to apologise for repeated wrongful accusations.

    P.S. For future reference, anyone who does not fight back fiercely against wrongful accusations had lost the faith in the system. Cédric HATES TPP. 22:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a very large difference between calling someone a "grammar Nazi", and calling someone "Herr Reichkommissar" as you did. Meters (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, there can be no peace -- Can you spell WP:ḆÁŤȚĻĘĞŘỖŪŃĐ? EEng 23:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: Okay. I rephrase that: Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, we will be unable to work with each other. My apologies for causing confusions. Also, if you want me to withdraw the "Herr Reichkommissar" part, I do that too. My intended reference was East Germany, not Nazi Germany. Cédric HATES TPP. 23:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the sort of system that you would be well advised to have faith in. It is designed primarily to keep the encyclopaedia running, not to mete out justice either for or against you.
    The fact is that these types of edit summaries are scarcely readable - to the extent that using them is disruptive.
    I do not want to see you blocked, but nor do I want to see this disruption continue. I suggest you stop using disruptive edit summaries, then you will have a much better chance of being treated as a colleague.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    @Rich Farmbrough: We'll have a deal. Cédric HATES TPP. 23:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a forum for political statements, so could you please remove "Hates TPP" from your signature? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And perhaps Cedric could also explain why we should believe that his or her reference to Reichskommissar was a reference to East Germany rather than to Nazi Germany when apparently East Germany never used the term? Meters (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaiser Wilhelm had them too so I guess it's OK. Near miss, though. EEng 00:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the Second Reich. Still has nothing to do with East Germany though, which was Cedric's explanation, and the vast majority of people will naturally associate "Reichkommisar" with the much-more-recent Third Reich, so I don't think it's a "miss" at all. I think Cedric got caught dead-to-rights throwing a Nazi-related reference at WG and his "explanation" was a lame attempt to wiggle out of it, just as his "explanation" that his edit summaries were "suprasegmentals" and not diacritics, was totally beside the point, which is that he was deliberately crafting his edit summaries so that no one (or at least very few people) could understand them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Fine. I admit it. I thought it was referring to the likes of Commissars from other Communist countries before I actually read the article and I admit that I shouldn't use that term now that I realise its Nazi reference. And If I get blocked for a definite period of time for this particular offence, then so be it. But it's only natural for a person to fight back again wrongful accusations like "attacking an anon" — Frankly, if "suspected vandalism" (key word: suspected) counts as an personal attack, I wouldn't know what doesn't count. So if WG refuse to apologise for his wrongful accusations, nobody should have faith in this system afterwards, since it's become little more than a popularity contest. Cédric 03:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Baloney. I don't know you, and I don't know Walter Gorlitz, so "popularity" has nothing to do with anything. Staying within the boundaries of acceptable behavior is what's on the line here, and that is why you're getting this pushback, which you keep making worse with each statement you make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, Thank you for removing "Hates TPP" from your sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry Cedric. I have nothing to apologize for.

    • Support BOOMERANG as well. I was much more accommodating nine months ago when Cedric was making some useful edits and the editor's edit summaries were somewhat legible. Both of those have deteriorated. Couple the editor's stance against anons, and I can't support anything other than a block. My preference would be indefinite own talk page privileges left intact so that an appeal can be made, something along the lines of a Wikipedia:Standard offer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please indent this as needed. The diacritics-y stuff in edit summaries is IPA. kʰä̃nt̚ bi ðat̚ ˈdɪfɪˌkəɫt̚ tʊ weɪtʰ fɔ̝˞ˑ ə̃n əˈfɪʃəɫ əˈnaʊsmə̃nt̚ naʊ, kʰæ̃n ɪt? = "can't be that difficult to wait for an official announcement now, can it?"; səˈspɛk̚tʰɪ̆d̚ ˈvæ̃ndəɫlɪzə̆m = "suspected vandalism". Gotta run, tofu turkey time. --Shirt58 (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block for Cedric

    Obviously, I'm not still angry about what happened in April, and I don't even fully remember what was so bad, but my motion then had a fair bit of support, and was only shot down because Cedric chose to voluntarily disappear. Now it is clear that he has rescinded this offer. It's clear from his edits in this thread that he is WP:NOTHERE. I would ping the users who already !voted on a non-specific "boomerang", but I got Christmas-y stuff to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beyond My Ken: If WG never wrongfully accused me of blanking any page (since I never did), none of this would've happened. It only natural for a person to fight back like a cornered animal when wrongfully accused. Cédric 03:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if you hadn't filibustered the last indef discussion by saying you would disappear voluntarily and then not actually disappearing, none of this would've happened. You have to understand that this has nothing whatsoever with being "wrongfully accused" (which by the way was a lie to begin with, as you clearly did blank some of the contents of that page, several times). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88 is perfectly correct in his analysis. And, no, in a civilized world -- which Wikipedia is intended to be -- it is not at all appropriate for an editor to act "like an animal" under any circumstances. That you think this is the case is actually a strong argument for your being indeffed, as you do not seem to understand the essential nature of a collaborative project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarnetteD: Respectfully, does WP:NOTHERE prohibits fighting wrongful accusations? Cédric 03:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Comment Leaning support. The prior ANI and current behavior here is a textbook example of an editor who does not have the necessary clue to edit collaboratively. "[F]ight back like a cornered animal" - Cedric please get a bit of perspective, this is Wikipedia not a fight for your life in some dark alley or battlefield for God's sake! The best thing you can do is drop this because ANI is simply not the place to use to try to force apologies. Beyond that stop using silly letters and made up spellings in edit summaries. It is disruptive, pointless and simply not amusing on any level. JbhTalk 03:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - There was no wrongful accusation by WG. The warning (using a standard template) was for removing content from a page, and that is what Cedric had done. Cedric's contributions to this thread demonstrate clearly that he does not understand the concept of collaborative editing, so he doesn't belong here. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block per all of the above and below. Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. BOOMERANGING here just to prove that he's a recurring problem who only got out of an index the last time by promising to disappear only to break that promise. Just not a benefit to the encyclopedia, and a battleground mentality to boot. oknazevad (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, even Galileo got out of an Index. EEng 05:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How ironic that one could get an excellent classical education just by reading the works on the list, and today's parents and educators – Catholic and otherwise – would cry out "Hallelujah" if a student today were to take up that task. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WP:NOT HERE. I have zero AGF left for this editor. Avoided a probable block at the last ANI by agreeing to disappear from Wikipedia but returned with more of the same behaviour. The disingenuous excuse for a Nazi attack is laughable. Meters (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing that this debate had degraded into a popularity contest, which makes wrongful accusations perfectly fine but makes defending oneself against wrongful accusations frowned upon as "WP:BATTLEGROUND", I don't see the need to defend myself any more, especially now that I can't even use a figure of speech without being targeted and intentionally misinterpreted (especially by Hijiri88). Here is my closing statement:

    • WG not only wrongfully accused me of removing encyclopaedic contents (while the content that I removed can be easily disproven by adequate research: David Ousted was never named the captain). He also wrongfully accused me of attacking an IP because I said "suspected vandalism" in the edit summary. The fact is, I made a deal in April and, after the deal, I already stopped attacking any editor unless explicitly provoked.
    • Hijiri88 not only has been intentionally misinterpreting me simply for the purpose of taking me down since April, but also is joining the ranks of false accusers by falsely accusing me of falsely accusing WG and of blanking any page, neither of which I am guilty of. I do not know about his motivation, but for someone to be so motivated that s/he resolved to wrongfully accusing me, s/he has to be benefitting somehow from my demise.
    • Long story short, everything here was incited by two wrongful accusations, which the accuser had since refused to withdraw.

    Peace out! And I hope this will go down as the biggest case of tyranny of the majority in English Wikipedia's history. Cédric 05:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope this goes down as the biggest case of tyranny in Wikipedua's history too: it would speak very well for Wikipedia. EEng 06:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Cedric, if you don't stop pinging me I'm going to privately ask an admin to block you for a few days while the discussion of whether you should be blocked indefinitely takes place. Your "figure of speech" apparently refers to your use of the word "wrongfully". If you did not mean to claim that you had not blanked material from that article, then you should not have claimed that it was a false accusation. I don't want to post here again. Kindly leave me alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Mistrial due to Hijiri88
    Given that Hijiri88 has wrongfully (and possibly maliciously) accused me of:

    • Lying about Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) accusing me of continuing to attack IPS (which had already stopped since April);
    • Actually blanking any page (which I never did),

    I move for an immediate mistrial and a new trial without Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). Cédric 03:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not a legal system. This is another piece of information which shows that you really don't understand this place, and don't belong here. Someone please hat this nonsense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin dealing with the snow –EEng
    It's worse than that, as it's not technically IPA or even any consistent system. Cedric's claim that his spellings accurately represent English sounds is meant simply to troll, as is his continued claim that he is simply fighting the "anti-diacritic" crowd. And as the main pre-ban target of User:JoshuSasori and User:LittleBenW, and one of the primary pre-ban targets (and probably the main target in the last two years or so) of User:Kauffner, I know better than most how to handle anti-diacritic crowd and how to identify someone who actually is "pro-diacritic", and Cedric simply isn't it. Honestly, I'd kinda like to a see a CU on him to find out if this was a joe-job by one of the above named anti-diacritic sockpuppeteers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I personally think that this doesn't go far enough. Cedric is clearly only here to troll for the lulz, as evidenced by their gobblty gook edit summeries. I would personally go siteban, myself, but I know that I am far too unforgiving to this type of obvious trolling behavior.--Adam in MO Talk 04:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It comes up quite a lot, and I still have not found a definitive answer (neither WP:BLOCK nor WP:BAN are clear on the matter), but a community-imposed indefinite block is functionally the same as a community-imposed site ban, as few admins would unilaterally undo a community consensus indefinite block without clear community consensus to rescind the "indefinite block", which itself would be functionally identical to a community consensus to remove a site ban. Yes, sometimes discussions take place to raise a community-imposed indefinite block to "site ban" level, but it's usually a formality, and many times admins have brought the de facto non-distinction up as reason not to unblock on appeal, or closed discussions like this in a manner that more closely resembles a site ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block. Reasoning: the editor has effectively breached the unspoken (read:unwritten) agreement he entered into following the previous AN/I, whereby he disappeared in the knowledge that he could be blocked if he returned to disrupt. Well, he did and he did. Further, far from demonstrating any willingness to listen to the community here, they have not demonstrated any understanding of the seriousness of the affair. This includes not only a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude but frankly WP:TAKINGTHEPISS by flauntingly continuing the same behaviour that brought them to ANI twice. Thirdly, the 'message' on their talk page runs against some of our fundamental philosophies. The continuing use of diacritics in edit summaries is childish, but demonstrates a near WP:CIR-level of myopia as to what is expected of them. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting topic ban for User:Jennepicfoundation

    Per community consensus, User:Jennepicfoundation is now banned from making any direct edits at the article Alexandre Mars. She may, however, use the article's talk page Talk:Alexandre Mars to participate in discussions and to suggest that changes be made to the article by other editors. Any direct edits to the article page made by Jennepicfoundation will lead to an immediate indefinite block. De728631 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

    The named user is a disclosed COI editor.[116] She is the Director of Communications for the Epic Foundation, whose founder and CEO is Alexandre Mars. She is a single purpose account who created and has worked exclusively on the article Alexandre Mars. (She previously used two alternate accounts, User:Andamanes and User:Jennchowdhury, which are currently blocked at her request.) User:Ritchie333 and I assisted her with creation of the article in May through July of last year, and it was accepted July 9, 2015. We and others counseled her about her conflict of interest and told her she should suggest edits at the talk page, but she persisted in doing direct edits to the article. On July 13 I gave her a strong warning.[117] She made a few innocuous edits, then the article was quiet and stable for a year and a half. On December 15 of this year, she pasted a mostly-new biography into the article.[118] The new material, which she described as "Epic Foundation-approved", was very promotional. She described her employer as "the French Bill Gates" and used language like "made a fortune", "the world's largest mobile agency", and "he is an avid runner and sports fanatic". She was warned that the article was a copyvio because it is duplicated in multiple other places, but she replied that the bio was created by the Epic Foundation and given to the other places where it is published, so she didn't regard it as a copyvio. (Of course, by our rules the fact that it had been published elsewhere meant that it was.) The situation has been discussed at her talk page [119], the article talk page [120], and most recently the COI noticeboard [121]. She appears to have no understanding of the problem or how inappropriate this recent addition was, and she clearly intends to keep doing this kind of thing. Although she has been told, repeatedly, not to edit the article herself, she insists that she can and will add anything she wants as long as it is sourced and (in her opinion) neutral.[122] I don't think further counseling is going to help. I am recommending an indefinite topic ban, for User:Jennepicfoundation and any alternate accounts, from any editing having to do with Alexandre Mars or the Epic Foundation. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Since she's never edited anything but the Mars article, and she is an obvious SPA with a self-admitted COI, a topic ban would be the equivalent of a block, so why not simply indef block her until she agrees to not edit the article directly, but to make suggestions on the talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Hard block indefinitely. Her statements at the talk page are the equivalent of giving us the middle finger. John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with JFI. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer a TBAN as more appropriate to the offense. There are things you get blocked for; there are things you get topic banned for; they are not the same things. But that's what discussion is for. I would just request that this discussion remain open until at least the 27th, so that she can have a chance to respond. (Chances are she does her posting from work, and she probably has Sunday and Monday off.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support pageban (allowing input on Talk) and block if it's not honoured. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an indef block, with talk page access. Why do we go through all these hoops to preserve the 1/1,000,000 chance that someone like this will ever be a productive editor? EEng 06:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page ban Not many hoops to go through. If they edit the page then they get blocked, if they stop editing altogether then it is effectively the same as an indef. If they start editing at the talk page (however unlikely this is seen to be) then we have the desired result. Jumping straight to indef seems a bit harsh. AIRcorn (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll bet you three AfDs, a GA, and ten DYKs it doesn't work. Deal? EEng 08:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your money is safe, but at least this way we're seen to be fair. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...nothing but yet another ANI thread. But hey, we got a zillion of them anyway, so what's one more? EEng 18:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page ban with talk access Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just so resolution of this is not held up because of an apparent division between editors as to what to do, let me be clear that if the consensus is for a page ban, I'm OK with that as well. I agree with waiting until the 27th for a close, seems only fair. (Unless she edits the article before then.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also support a page ban. Good idea, because it leaves her able to suggest edits on the talk page. The ban should make it clear that if she edits on the article page, AT ALL, that will be an immediate block. No need for a return to ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the user hasn't yet figured out that direct editing of the article is improper, I don't think she ever will. However, I support MelanieN's idea of giving a little more WP:ROPE – she can suggest edits on the talk page, but any direct editing of the article will lead to an immediate indefinite block. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too would accept a page ban with talk page access for the sake of a solid concensus only. However, I'm in the same camp as EEng. Hope does not spring eternal here for me. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    [FBDB] JfI, I'm going to have to ask you to leave my camp if you don't stop eating collaborative communities [123]. Fair warning. EEng 04:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complication: the user has been blocked as a username violation, so she currently cannot respond here even if she wants to. I have posted a note to the blocking administrator (I don't think the name is a violation), but in the meantime please don't close this discussion; I'd really like her to have a chance to respond rather than getting blindsided over a holiday weekend. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Never mind, she's been unblocked. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP block for IPV6 range by Cox Communications out of Buckeye, Arizona

    Editor has been asked several times to be civil on Talk:Canada and is now making personal attacks at me. There's no way to address anon other than by the city in which the editor's IP is located and the editor seems to have decided to out me, and my location. I can't warn anon because of IP hopping. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Walter Görlitz, the IP isn't hopping on purpose, their ISP does that. The whole /16 range can be blocked if required, as it's all one person and carries no risk of collateral damage. But I'd need some examples of the personal attacks before considering such a rangeblock. I'm having trouble finding any attacks — they may be there, but there are a lot of edits from the range on the talkpage, and all I see at a quick look is basically discussion. And what about the outing you mention? Bishonen | talk 17:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • More: PS, I understand it's difficult to warn them, but you certainly missed an opportunity when they came to your page and you simply removed them. They're probably keeping an eye on your page, so it would make sense to a) put back their post, and b) respond to it with a warning and a specific mention of this ANI discussion. Just a thought. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    I understand how IPV6 works. Each time you sign on, you get a new IP. However, I would like a block. I placed a warning on the Canada talk page expressing the facts. I also asked for proof and the editor, who has no proof, called me a troll for requesting proof. A block please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that's not a blocking matter in my book, Walter Görlitz. And you gave as good as you got, indeed your response was more personal than the IP's post. Bishonen | talk 00:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Understood. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    80.63.3.167

    The user 80.63.3.167 has been the driving force behind an edit war in the article Party of the Danes. The user continues to remove sources and does that by a political bias clearly stated by the user on the talk page. I wonder if it is here i ask for a semi-lock on the article or if you should move on the users behaviour instead? I have been drawn into the war by reverting the users edits, so in that sense i have been no better than he/she. Regards, Dnm (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, answer my concerns at Talk:Party of the Danes instead of ignoring me and reverting my rewriting. I try to be constructive at least. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And no, false accusations of vandalism don't count as an appropriate answer. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dnm, firstly, removing sources is not vandalism. It mostly falls under disruptive editing. Please read what is and what is not vandalism at WP:Vandalism. Regarding the IP, I am not sure I quite understand your second message, but if a vandal is edit warring (not you in this case), a user is more than allowed to use that excuse to revert them and report them if necessary. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link. I will read it. I am not used to English Wikipedia and its choice of words. Dnm (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that I've raised my concerns about the sourcing of the article on the talk, but Dmn (and Adville) respond to my critique with ad hominem and it seems no consensus can be reached. When I try to rewrite the article into NPOV, it just gets reverted with no explanation other than "vandalism" from Dnm. It's getting annoying. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I just semiprotected the article for a month for persistent disruptive editing (tendentious removal of sourced and relevant content), and only afterwards did I notice this ANI report. Anyway, my action still seems appropriate, unless another admin has a better idea. Thank you for your report, Dnm. For another time, the best place to ask for protection is WP:RFPP. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Disruptive editing? Please take a look at my NPOV version [124] compared to now [125], and consider my concerns raised at [126] which I have not received a response for, before labelling it as "disruptive". --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Political parties and other organizations don't get to simply self-describe, Wikipedia is also supposed to tell the reader what reliable sources say about their ideology. You have repeatedly removed every trace of that in the lead and body of the article and in the infobox, relegating it to a separate "Allegations of Nazism" section. That's not how NPOV works. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Read my comment and the discussion at talk again. The article is POV, there has been a huge discussion about these "Nazism" claims on da.wiki, and the outcome was to collect such allegations in a separate section. It is NOT OKAY to spam the article with an WP:UNDUE amount of Swedish MSM for a Danish party with irrelevant links and WP:POVPUSHING agencies like expo.se and present it as "Many experts and analysts" when it is obviously a fringe view not even acknowledged in Danish MSM about a Danish political party. Expo.se is NOT RS, as I have explained 1000 times in the talk and omni.se + Aftonbladet do NOT explicitly state that PofD is Nazi, so how on earth can you accept this when these issues are unsolved? What a disgrace and such a superficial way of managing this dispute. When you're dealing with the sole claims from 1 single Swedish MSM (minus expo.se, which is not RS) and 1 researcher at a left-leaning university, it's absolutely not okay present this as a mainstream view, then it is just biased accusations, and should be dealt with so as accusations in a separate section, and in the lead you could write something in the line of "The party has been accused of X by Y." --80.63.3.167 (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked ContraVentum (talk · contribs) who edit-warred over much the same thing in much the same terms (i.e., complaints about "Swedish MSM" and Swedish editors) after the article was semi-protected. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron's The Best: Ownership and CIR issues

    Aaron's The Best (talk · contribs) is a very young user per the information on his user page, and we need to keep this in mind for this discussion, though we should not be bending policy on that account. There has been some WP:CIR issues in the past, including problematic page moves and inadvertently helping a long-term vandal/sockpuppeteer (more about that here; ATB did not try to discuss or fix his error, and it led to an AfD which in my opinion was rather unnecessary, but that particular issue has not been repeated). See also this previous ANI discussion where ATB promised to stop using unreliable sources.

    The most recent issue, and the immediate reason I'm posting this, is a series of edits claiming ownership of an article, and a refusal or inability to listen to other editors' requests to discuss edits instead of reinstating his own preferred version. An article Aaron's The Best created was taken to AfD which closed in a consensus to merge the content into another article. During the discussion ATB closed it prematurely as a "keep" and was questioned about this but without acknowledging his error or explaining why he thought it was a good idea despite a direct question. After the discussion had been properly closed, ATB started edit warring in order to keep the entire content from the article - see article histories of the mergefrom article (the one deleted in the AfD) and the mergeto article. The last straw was this user talk page discussion about the merge. A couple of days ago, on a different user's talk page, ATB had said "I have undone your edits and will keep the page forever". What's new? and I asked ATB not to use that kind of expression and to edit collaboratively by discussing his edits, and ATB's reply was 1) to unilaterally restore his edits (with this edit summary) and, when this was reverted, to restore yet again without attempting to discuss, and 2) a talk page post stating that "Pretty much, I undid everyone's edits and will keep it like that."

    ATB received a final warning for disruptive editing two days ago, following this (which was self reverted after a minute) and that's why I'm taking this to ANI instead of warning again. There are also other signs of CIR problems and a confrontational attitude, such as this edit summary, this inappropriate removal of deletion tags, and this angry post to the 3RR board which followed a slightly inappropriate report by ATB. Again, the user is young, but he has been causing a certain amount of disruption at this point - his talk page shows other instances as well. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Have to agree with what bonadea has mentioned here and was very close to making a similar report here myself. As bonadea has pointed out, I was involved with the Go! Kids AfD issues already mentioned, with Aaron's The Best making statements suggesting he would do whatever he wanted anyway, as well as a troubling history of ignoring proper process and blanking pages (even if they're self reverted quickly). There has been page move issues and using subpages as a reason to host a non-free image, but my biggest concern is the inability or unwillingness to learn from issues raised and failing to engage in discussion or consensus building across multiple articles. -- Whats new?(talk) 12:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do I get the feeling that WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA has some involvement in this somewhere? MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 23:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wanted to concur with the various sentiments given above. ATB is a very young user and it is simply unlikely that a user that young will have the necessary maturity to work collaboratively with other editors, even if he is acting in good faith. I made a point of leaving a very seriously worded warning in regards to his closing the AfD early on an article that he himself created. His message on my user page after I redirected the article in compliance with the results of the AfD indicates an unwillingness to comply with Wikipedia's collaborative community guidelines. Safiel (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.20.163.200

    Blocked. (non-admin closure) GABgab 20:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Just look at his contributions...speaks for themselves. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to study your policies a little harder and also look at the guide to ANI. 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good God. Now I've got you trying to prevent me blanking my own talkpage. You really need to study Wikipedia's fine print before pretending to be a policeman. 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that the user who created this Incident also attempted to delete my comments here with no reason given. [127] 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    From a comment he left on someone else's talkpage, it seems Vjmlhds has created this incident in an attempt to gain revenge on me for telling him to "fuck off" on my own talkpage. Apparently I "picked the wrong cowboy to cuss at"... 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on anything else, but anyone can remove ANI notices from their talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, anyone can remove warning notices from their talk page - removing them is seen as confirmation they've been seen and understood. And telling someone to "fuck off" is not a personal attack, just an impolite request to be left alone. And ANI is typically the place for complex disagreements/abuse, not a butthurt kid trying to get revenge on an IP editor who they feel has challenged their manhood (or what passes for it). 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But IP how do you explain your hostile behavior over a user's editing? Disagreeing is allowed, but insulting editors for a disagreement is not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My explanation for my initial behaviour is that I got angry when I saw how badly DantODB had been editing and the countless warnings he'd received. 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summaries like this one and talk page posts calling editors "cretins" and calling an editor a "butthurt kid" are not conducive to collaborative editing; the occasional expletive is one thing, treating other editors with outright contempt is another. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have outright contempt for both editors. One of them seems to be incapable of editing and the other opened an incident at ANI because "I picked the wrong cowboy to cuss at". 92.20.163.200 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I insist you redact your comments soon IP. There is no place for your childish insults and contempt for other users. A block will most likely result if you do not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked for 24h for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ip came back from the dead

    Blocked. (non-admin closure) GABgab 05:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yes, here I am again, with yet another disruptive editor in the field of Jewish articles. 79.78.168.63 (talk · contribs) is back disrupting the Hebrew calendar article and talkpage after a half year block. His point of view has been extensively, ad nauseam actually, discussed in a section on the talkpage, and rejected. Nevertheless, today he made an attempt to add his opinion to the article[128] and reopen the talkpage discussion.[129]

    In addition, I find it highly suspicious that this editors comes back 1. right now that Rococo1700 was blocked here on WP:ANI for 48 hours 2. is aware of my recent report of Rococ1700 here on WP:ANI as follows from this edit 3. displays the same battleground behavior as Rococo1700, as witnessed from this edit where he says "I will be delighted to meet you at ANI" 4. also edits (and edit wars) Judaism-related articles.

    Whether that is a coincidence or not, I think the best course of action is to reinstate the block of this IP. His is a single-purpose account, and the purpose is to be disruptive and push his point of view against consensus. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think it's probably a coincidence. Their edits don't overlap, but the IP is from a main British ISP, whereas Rococo1700, judging by their editing times, is in the USA. Feel free to start an SPI page if you think they're the same, though. Incidentally, the IP was previously blocked for being a sock of a completely unrelated banned editor, although whether they actually were is another issue. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so sure about the unrelated bit. The banned editor in question is known to take great interest in calendar-related articles. Favonian (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was my point, really; the banned editor in question is certainly not known for spending 95% of their time on Italian art-related articles, as Rococo1700 does. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for putting me straight. :) Thus encouraged, I have renewed the IP's block for ban-evasion. Favonian (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to have been wrong about Rococo1700, and also with the solution implemented. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    213.123.194.188 (talk · contribs) is continuing the issue on the talkpage. As you can see, he was involved in this issue before, and now suddenly came back after more than a year-long hiatus. I am not sure if this is another sock, but showing up suddenly after more than a year and making no other edits, makes me suspicious. He was previously blocked for sock evasion. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely the same and blocked as such. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring on Kay Parker

    Content disputes should be taken to the article talk page, not ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm kind of at the end of my rope with 68.46.28.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There's been a few-days-long edit war on Kay Parker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) happening where myself and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will delete bogus/unsourced info in accordance with WP:BLP, upon which the IP user will revert it and leave abusive, unsigned messages on my talk page.[130] [131]. 68. has been blocked once before for similar behavior. The only reason I come here now is because I really don't want to be abused further over what amounts to a very simple, very bright-line application of BLP.

    Karunamon Talk 18:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am happy Karunamon brought this discussion to this page. It should be very simple for someone to explain to Karunamon how WP (should) work. (Of course all his claims of "abuse" are outrageous defamation, but whatever.) Here is the issue, someone explain to one of us who is right:

    Kay Parker was a porn actress. She was known for one thing, and one thing only: She starred in the original Taboo. If you don't believe me, a simple google search will produce dozens of pages with ACTUAL CLIPS FROM THE MOVIE. The one place you WON'T find this information is . . . wikipedia. Wait, what? The world's encyclopedia doesn't have the most obvious fact about a celebrity? I have for 20 years been a good WP citizen, and whenever I see a mistake or omission I fix the problem in good faith. Lately it has become almost impossible to improve WP because of incidents like this. I added a simple sentence that "Kay Parker is best known for Taboo." Now, if there is a rule that claims on biography pages must be sourced, I am fine with that. It is obviously grossly NOT FOLLOWED, EVEN ON KAY PARKER'S OWN PAGE, but whatever. So what did I do? I provided THREE DIFFERENT CITATIONS TO THIS OBVIOUS FACT, one of the cited pages is ALREADY A SOURCE ON PARKER'S PAGE!!!!! Yes, the information is already available with already cited sources.

    And this information has now been deleted multiple times from Parker's page. This kind of abusive editing MUST BE STOPPED. It is destroying the value of wikipedia. If you people won't explain this to this guy, there is no hope for any of you.

    (By the way, just to be clear, during this whole charade, I have been trying in good faith simply to add relevant information to Parker's page. This guy is now claiming the reason for deleting the information is my language--that she's "most famous for" taboo. I just want to be clear here, so we are all clear on who is acting in good faith and who is not, I modified that statement the last time I added it so it said "She was in the movie Taboo." THAT WAS ALSO DELETED. (I included citations too.) The biggest thing that has to change here is that the assumption that superusers are being truthful has to stop.

    We've discussed this before. "Best known for" is not encyclopedic, or cited. Who's to say that she's not "best known for" some other role? Say she starred in it - fine. Cites prove that. Say she's most well known for it.. there's nothing to support that. Karunamon Talk 22:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    To Karunamon: "says she starred in it--fine." Yes, exactly, and yet that information is currently not on the Kay Parker page. I added it four or five times. You now admit that it is proper information to have on her page. AND YET THE INFORMATION IS NOT THERE. Because you and others have deleted the information in bad faith multiple times. The page is currently laughably incomplete, and _____I_____, the only one who wants to fix it, have been blocked from fixing it. There is a problem with many of the editors of WP, that is for sure, and I am not it.

    At this point I don't even know what you're talking about. Look at the page history, and notice that I made one, and only one edit. All that edit did was delete some invalid userbox syntax, and the opinionated statement you've all but admitted doesn't belong (about "most known for"). I did not remove anything about roles she's starred in wholesale, and at this point, I demand you either link to the edit where I did so, or stop lying about it. Immediately after that revert, and my initial post about it, you started leaving progressively less civil messages on my talk page in violation of policies on personal attacks and talk page signatures. If you want to add sourced information that she starred in Taboo, go for it. That's totally okay, as I've told you in the talk discussions many, many times now. The only reason that discussion ceased is because you told me to stop talking to you. If that information includes unsourced opinions, I will revert it again. "Adding information" and "completeness" are not excuses for violations of the biography of living persons policy. Karunamon Talk 23:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked the article talk page, and noticed there is no discussion regarding this issue. You both should take any discussion to that page, and if needed use the tools from WP:DISPUTE to develop consensus on the disputed content. ANI (this page) is not the place to carry out a content dispute. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There really is no content dispute. Kay Parker was in the movie Taboo. I added that information to her page. It has been deleted five times and now I have been blocked. At no point has anyone seriously disputed whether she was in the movie. This is just a usual question of WP editors repeated bad-faith editing. Since they are allowed to get away with it, it continues.

    Karumanon, if you haven't been making those edits, what in the world are you talking to me for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.28.103 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You are both discussing article content, and you are disputing its removal. By definition, it's a content dispute and this is not the page for that discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:1Wiki8...

    1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR blocked indefinitely, per (repeated) self request in subsection below. If he changes his mind (or, worse, if he was just fucking around wasting people's time), he can request an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I do not think 1Wiki8...'s conduct towards other editors is appropriate for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. They are either aggressive, accusing other editors of bias and disruption without evidence, dismissive of concerns, or outright ridiculing another editor (again without providing an explanation for their own conduct that's being questioned). It seems that disagreement is not attempted to be resolved by discussion, argument or evidence, but by ad hominems. Particularly the conduct towards SwisterTwister borders on harassment - if they have an issue with that editor's conduct they should bring it to an appropriate noticeboard, not raise it in every deletion discussion where their paths meet. Given their attitude, I expect me raising my concerns about their conduct on their talk page would have been dismissed too, thus I'm bringing it here. I don't quite think this needs a block yet, but I do think it would help if some uninvolved admin could caution them to change their approach, with a threat of future blocks if this goes on. Huon (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of this behavior seems centered around deletion discussions and processes. Would a topic ban from Deletion Processes (include XFD, CSD, PROD etc...) with the usual exceptions be appropriate, or has this behavior occurred in various parts of the project?. Huon thoughts? I do agree the behavior aimed at SwisterTwister almost reaches the threshold of harassment. Regardless of the outcome of this thread 1wiki8.....'s behavior is clearly unacceptable. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Often (though IMO hardly always) 1Wiki8... does have a valid point in those deletion discussions. If they were able to make those valid points civilly, I would prefer that to excluding them from the process. If they cannot, a topic ban may be preferable to an outright block. Huon (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Community imposed Civility Restrictions then? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that's a thing. Sounds reasonable to me. Huon (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INDEF seems wiser, that way you can fully censor me. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem like this thread was quick to move into multiple possible sanctions/restrictions prior to any discussion save the opening post. I'm not an admin, but I, for one, would want to see quite a bit more evidence, despite the diffs provided suggesting some cause for concern. Of course, it would've been helpful if 1Wiki provided a real response to Huon's claims... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but with the caveat that...when someone accuses you of being uncivil, especially through being flippant and dismissive, its probably not the best response to be immediately flippant and dismissive. It's less so to default on the most perennially misinterpreted policy in Wikipedia history, and the last bastion for every user who has ever been sanctioned. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that 1Wiki8 is goading and taunting SwisterTwister every chance he gets, and that really needs to stop. Reyk YO! 15:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action here is the best course. It is pretty clear that Huon, who went to 1Wiki's talk page to complain about his deprodding company articles, is in a general content dispute with 1Wiki over the inclusion-worthiness of company articles, and is launching this complaint per Chicago Kelly's Rule No. 2 - "Battles over the appropriateness of a source for use in Wikipedia have always been settled through collateral attacks such as accusing one's opponent of incivility or other violations of the rules. This is largely because Wikipedia has no mechanism at all for authoritatively deciding disputes over content, but does have mechanisms for settling disputes over conduct, which causes disputes over content to be transformed into disputes over conduct." Carrite (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Carrite, I suggest you re-read what I actually said above. You badly misrepresent my position which I spelled out explicitly. Huon (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    De-prod. Clearly biased and disruptive nomination. Prod'ing editor description of global ATMIA as a "Locally-based association" clearly shows they did not research on this topic. Another cookie-cutter disruptive action by prodding editor. [132]
    Keep - clearly notable due to clearly significant mentions in clearly reliable sources, clearly to be seen in this discussion already, clearly enough to base a clearly standard and clearly neutral wikipedia article by clearly competent wikipedians. User:SwisterTwister analysis is clearly cookie-cutter, clearly biased and clearly should be dismissed as such. Like, clearly![133]
    de-prod. clearly claims of notability, clearly backed up by reliable references. and clearly needs a NPOV and tone rewrite.[134] (...which clearly begs the question why this was followed up by neither cleanup tags nor cleanup)
    de-prod - credible claims of notability[135] (IMHO, this particular article likely qualified for A7, having barely a claim to significance, much less notability, which is not inherited by virtue of being an offshoot of Quicken.)
    de-prod - credible claims of notability[136] (Only apparent claim to notability is having raised a total of $11m in funding)
    clearly a draft - clearly can be improved - clearly not CSD material - clearly clearly[137]
    Thanks for your continued humor! I love it! Keep going.[138] (Not exactly a good faith attempt to address the concerns of another editor.)
    The issue you raise is part of a long-term disruption, and will require community involvement to solve for the long-term. Looking for legitimate discussion is a fine goal, but not something you're going to see much at AFD while there is this long-term disruption taking place. Don't be baited by the disrupters, they thrive on long, involved discussion threads where they can repeat their baseless claims over, and over, and over again.[139] (not exactly a paragon of AGF, as rightly pointed out in reply)
    SwisterTwister Please, stop badgering people at AFD. It is disruptive. when TS replied now CU banned user User:Hang googles.[140]
    This overuse of WP:NOT reminds one of the boy who cried wolf. SwisterTwister has misused WP:NOT so many times in the past, and this is yet another case of misuse, and disruption on their part. Very same thread.[141]

    Although I didn't dig terribly deeply, there does seem to be a bit of a pattern of...more of a battle ground approach on the issue of deletion verses preservation, and overall, not the kind of behavior that is conducive to either collaboration or discussion. If there is a legitimate issue with disruption from another user, then that should be addressed. It is however not acceptable to simply resign yourself to continually disparaging others in lieu of of that. TimothyJosephWood 17:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Anybody can de-PROD anything... The next step is to take contested de-PRODs to AfD, not to engage in fisticuffs on the de-PRODer's userpage... Carrite (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And individuals who are not an article's creator may remove a CSD tag, but probably shouldn't do it in a way that could be construed as a personal attack against the person who put it there. If someone makes a good faith effort to seek explanation on your talk why you are dePRODDING a seemingly unusually large number of articles, you should probably respond in a way that is constructive, and not mock them as if they are an idiot for asking. TimothyJosephWood 20:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is deprodding a large number of articles regarded as a party foul while prodding a large number of articles or voting "Delete" on a huge percentage of articles not regarded as worthy of notice? Carrite (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody can de-PROD anything... It sounds like you're using a Wikipedia variant of something addressed by XKCD on free speech: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express." Or, rewritten here, "Defending an action by saying 'the rules allow it' is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your action is that it's not literally illegal to do." --Calton | Talk 00:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Calton: Besides the debatable removal of PRODs, what about his snide remarks and taunting of SwisterTwister? Are those perfectly fine and the almost flippant and battle ground behavior they seem to display with anything remotely related to deletion discussions? These are clearly an issue. You can't dismiss these concerns with "its solely a content dispute" because it isn't. Something needs to be done, be it community imposed civility restrictions or a final warning from the closing administrator. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the deproddings as such, it's the continued trolling and sarcastic gloating commentary. This has been pointed out several times already. Reyk YO! 07:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguable someone mass-PRODing articles as well as mass dePRODing without prior discussion falls into WP:Fait accompli issues. Yes, removing/readding PROD messages compared to AFD is much easier but still the same principle applies. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question has blatantly continued to de-prod articles, even after being notified of this ANI discussion. Evidence:[142] It looks like there is strong evidence that this dastardly editing pattern will continue. I recommend severe punishment: either 1) WP:INDEF, or 2), a much worse punishment, a severe sanction that I really do not wish upon anyone: force the admin bit onto this user. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And MORE evidence, the user continues to de-prod articles. Evidence:[143]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But that one was explained and a valid reason. I'm not weighing-in on the rest of the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to support civility restrictions, and then oblige them their badly desired indef if they are unable to restrain themselves from casting aspersions on ST, and otherwise behaving like a child. I've disagreed with ST on my fair share of deletion discussions, even articles I've personally accepted at AfC, that they subsequently took to AfD. I've also agreed with them plenty of times, and managed to do so based on the merits of the case.
    The community has and will continue to tolerate disagreements at XfD, because that's part of the process. What is not tolerable is to wage a personal war on another user. Beyond that, 1Wiki8's responses here pretty clearly show that they at the very least don't take the issue seriously, and would rather mock the community as idiots, as if we don't have the sense required to look through a few dozen diffs. TimothyJosephWood 13:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is another solution we may have not looked at a one way WP:IBAN banning 1wiki.... from interacting with SwisterTwister. I'm willing to support that or the civility restrictions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Timothyjosephwood is not a giant fan.
    I'm not a giant fan of an IBAN, since it may effectively be largely a TBAN from AfD. TimothyJosephWood 23:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    IBAN will never work, as the user in question rejects it, and would never abide. I have it on good authority that the user will continue to de-prod and de-csd articles based on their own interpretation of policies and guidelines. I also have it on good authority that the user will not suffer fools gladly, and continue to compose textual responses on their talk page and on-wiki commentary based on their own interpretation of policies and guidelines. Nothing will change that. INDEF is the only solution if you really believe the user in question is disruptive to the wikipedia process. There is no other way, the user will not stop! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not a fan, especially if the bulk of the articles you are are deprodding are article like this, painfully obviously written by an editor with a conflict of interest, and half of which was unsourced advertising, that is, before I removed half the article, but prior to which sat with an advert cleanup tag for three years, and remains nearly entirely sourced to the official website. I'm not entirely sure that can be fixed, because all I'm seeing is puff pieces in local media.
    I honestly could care less about the technical limits of deprodding, or what you are technically allowed to do even if it slants contrary to the purpose of the project. If all you are doing is unnecessarily filling AfD, or worse, ensuring that blatant advertising like this article surely stays on the encyclopedia for another three years, then you need to stop. And all this is without addressing your sustained personal attacks and aspersions against ST, and flippant attitude when anyone attempts to discuss the issue. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick spot check of some of the PRODded articles, and the majority are advertising brochures. I fully support the PRODs and disagree with the deprods, and I suggest they would probably be deleted at AfD. Reyk YO! 16:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And thus, you should call for an INDEF against this user, then their evil inclusionist ways can be stopped! It is the only way. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block

    As per the evidence and commentary above, User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR should be immediately indefinitely blocked.

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    User:Motbag12 edit warring, called editors white trash and vandals

    (non-admin closure) User has been blocked by Hoary for 31 hours for offensive comments. Prior to that, the user started a discussion on the talk page of the article. I'm closing this with a warning to Motbag12 that if they recommence edit-warring (instead of establishing WP:CONSENSUS on the article's talk page) after the block expires, or if they post offensive comments, or if they edit as an IP to edit war, the next block will be commensurately longer. Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Moving this from WP:EW as there was no 3RR notice:

    Page
    Indian Century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Motbag12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 756848092 by Joshua Jonathan (talk)You are simply a white trash European who hates India. You cant deal with India and China becoming great powers, is it? Sources give"
    2. 04:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC) "VANDALISM REVERTED. There is no such Wikipedia or encyclopedia rules and regulations such like that. As long as legitimate sources are provided, those sources can be listed for verification only."
    3. 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 756753478 by RegentsPark (talk) VANDALISM REVERTED; Lead Expanded - economic projections"

    Also [144] while logged out, calling other editors vandals and white trash, etc. I see little hope for this editor and iif I hadn't reverted them would have taken action myself. He's been warned several times and another editor removed a personal attack I haven't read from the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 06:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No 3rr warning though but this is still beyond acceptable. Doug Weller talk 06:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Doug Weller talk 06:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Misread one of the warnings, as it said 'has been removed' I thought it meant a talk page comment, but it must have referred to an edit summary, although of course that hasn't been removed. Doug Weller talk 06:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm losing track of the reverts, another with his account[145] and two more with an IP address, with an edit summary about "white Americans". So that's 2 after the warning. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that makes 3 total after the warning. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Awarded a 31-hour cooling-off period. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Evading block as an IP.[146] Before the block he seems to have used another IP.[147] which User:Materialscientist blocked. Doug Weller talk 22:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Busily evading the block with different IPs. (Perhaps his own block should be lengthened accordingly.) I've regretfully s-protected Talk:India and Talk:Indian Century. -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say an extension by 72 hours per block evasion offence would be alarmingly easy to justify. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have no trouble justifying it myself, Twitbookspacetube. But I would say that, wouldn't I? After all, he [I always think of these people as male] has put me among "white illiterate administrators of free encyclopedia", a diagnosis that must surely upset me so profoundly (not) as to render me incapable of dispassionate thought. Better that an alternative admin takes any additional action. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I suppose WP:INVOLVED is rather important Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed WP:CIR block for user Qucipuci0

    Hello. I have come across a user (Qucipuci0) who is making a lot of Japanese album articles - which is fine, however, I don't think English is their first language and their choice of wording in articles is very poor. Example: diff and one of their pages that I haven't fixed: Power of Words - I have fixed at least 20 of these articles with the same style wording, "Album charted for 42 weeks and totally sold 746,000 copies.". I have reached out to them offering my help and even told them how to reply back to me in case they didn't know how, to no avail. They have created 149 articles and have several article deletion notices on their talk page. I am requesting either a warning or a WP:CIR block [per recommendation of an admin] --Jennica✿ / talk 07:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems the user has chosen to retire. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling by 216.15.70.128

    I'm bringing this over from WP:AIAV as I guess trolls are allegedly not considered vandals and the administrator who rejected the report refuses to discuss this there even though plenty of short discussions take place there all the time when an administrator rejects a report. Anyway, I was originally not even involved with this IP, but after AlexTheWhovian, a user who's on my watch list, requested the IP to leave his talk page alone, the IP ignored his request and posted on his talk page again. Alex reverted the IP, to which the IP responded by reverting Alex. I then reverted the IP and the IP began stalking me at 100 Things to Do Before High School and raised basically a bogus discussion on the talk page of that article just to cause trouble and then posted on my talk page accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Alex. This is honestly behavior that shouldn't be tolerated and should be a blockable offense. The IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Callmemirela also reverted an edit of theirs on Alex's talk page, though I don't know if they ended up getting stalked as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeating copyvios

    User:Cornellcam is repeatedly creating a promotional article for Board of Student Advisers, most recently at Board of student advisers. These is largely copyvios and have been deleted 3 times at the original location as A7, G11 and G12. Xe has now reposted at a new location and this version is like the others and is largely copied and closely paraphrased from here Duplication Detector. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted and salted "Board of student advisers". ("Board of Student Advisers" was already deleted and salted.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That would explain why the creation has occurred across multiple titles. Thanks! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to have helped. If the material pops up under yet another title, don't hesitate to point this out. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate section at Talk:Generation Snowflake

    Talk:Generation Snowflake#Please ban Keri should probably be removed, closed, or hatted, along with leaving a note on the talk page of the contributor who opened it stating that such a thing is inappropriate on the talk page of an article.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've hatted it, even though I'm not an admin, because I found it inappropriate - "ban someone or I'll stop donating" is a bit childish really. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, someone would need to prove they actually are donating. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, they wouldn't, because it would be utterly irrelevant to any on-wiki dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So instead he would need to take it up with the Foundation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why it's relevant at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Boing! said Zebedee. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree in general. But it's not automatically irrelevant. It might be relevant to the Foundation, IF the user isn't bluffing and is a significant donor. Not that that's license to attack other editors - it's akin to a legal threat. But the WMF might be interested in looking into it. You always have to be careful where money comes into play. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that my donations are meaningless in the disagreement. The actions on that page definitely make me want to distance myself from Wikipedia, mostly because it seems gang-like and it is increasingly clear that wikipedia is about popularity. Don't worry about my donations. Thanks for at least taking me seriously. 63.227.22.211 (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you want to quit editing, we can't stop you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the idea that someone would attempt to use donations (that may or may not have actually happened) as a method to exert editorial control or leverage extremely distasteful. Why not go and edit another article instead of making this toothless attempt at blackmail? Exemplo347 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User has already been blocked for edit warring and is clearly very pissed off at the direction the article is taking (he's not the only one). Don't see any reason to keep this open. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthewparadoa

    Continued addition of unsourced material to BLP after final warning.

    • Final warning: [148]
    • Continued addition of unsourced material: [149]

    Suggest a temporary block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems the user is likely a sock of User:Mattmeine, given their similar behavior. TimothyJosephWood 15:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...who is a banned sock of User:CensoredScribe. TimothyJosephWood 15:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, so how do we get a block? This user continues to add unsourced material: [150]. Is there a better noticeboard for this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm...ping @JzG: and @Doug Weller: who happen to be randomly two of the recent admins to contribute here that I recognize. Is this WP:DUCK worthy, or do we actually need to go through the WP:SPI backlog? TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping to avoid SPI, as I find the procedure tedious. We should certainly get a temp block on the BLP issues, but a sock ban would be better if that's possible. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kendall-K1 and Timothyjosephwood: Sorry, I've been busy. I've blocked as a sock of Mattmeine - but note that Mattmeine is only a suspected sock of CensoredScribe, he wasn't blocked as a sock. The CU evidence combined with behavioral was sufficient. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – User blocked. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DAA pages... rogue school project?

    I've seen a number of pages created with a page name starting in DAA, or mentioning DAA in their edit summary. They generally start with a description of the Euclidean theorem. I think we have a rogue educational assignment going on. Has anybody been able to piece together the instructor behind this?

    I am intentionally not tagging the users who have created these pages because I don't think they're at fault—frankly, I blame the instructor. However, if it's deemed helpful, I'll put a list here of the ones I know about and notify the users. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted a couple of these recently:
    I would agree it does look like a bit of a rouge group of students -- samtar talk or stalk 17:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: Okay, a couple of these have been recreated and are copyvios - could you provide a list of possible students you've come across? -- samtar talk or stalk 17:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Kolliparakavyasree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a user who has created a page three times. I'd suggest, if they recreate again, leaving the page tagged but not deleting to see if we can get some kind of engagement, at least through the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    15071A05N8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also created multiple attempts. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Add Poojamiryala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the report. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked one if it's a class assignment but no response as yet. The users I've id so far:
    15071A05N8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Aditya 369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Patlolla Varun Kumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sushma Sree Lakhinena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Slagha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Harshitha Bhojanapally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nthep (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    add IndumathiD12 and Mahimitra as well. Nthep (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    From the edit summaries to DAA-M9 we have confirmation that it is an assignment rather than some convoluted group vandalism. Nthep (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    So are they trying to write another Euclidean algorithm article or something else connected with Euclidean?... If a redirect to Euclidean algorithm was placed at "Euclidean theorem" that might cut down on some of the hubbub. Shearonink (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just throwing out some options to keep this under control:
    • Salt any titles involved. Each student seems to have their own identifying number, so hopefully they might not try to evade.
    • Block involved accounts nicely.
    • Add a temporary title blacklist entry D[Aa][Aa].*<autoconfirmed> or similar.
    Thoughts? (Please note I don't necessarily endorse these, just pointing them out for discussion. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to have died down now. I have asked one of the users to ask their tutor/whoever to contact us via Education Incidents so we can help them establish a sensible, effective use of WP. Nthep (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nthep: Any joy? Just deleted another (Daa A7) -- samtar talk or stalk 14:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No replies either at talk pages or Edu/Inicdents. Nthep (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Article ownership and personal attacks

    Warning delivered. Further incidents of this sort will be dealt with more severely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello! Please, do something with this user. [151]. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The "or else" is an implied threat, and cannot be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified the user of this discussion. Please remember to do this yourself the next time you file a request at AN or ANI. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The name-calling (which I won't repeat here, it's in the link) is probably at least as bad as the "or else". Neutron (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Corvus tristis. That looks pretty clear cut to me. Everybody needs to keep calm and discuss differences in a civil manner which clearly did not happen here. I have dropped a warning on their talk page. If you have anymore problems of that sort drop me a line on my talk page and I will deal with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to leave this open for a bit in case Jvm21 wants to respond, but I don't see much more to be added to this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jvm21 was previously blocked in September by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus for adding unsourced statements to articles. (An example is described at User talk:Jvm21#Best Foreign Language Film). We should consider taking some admin action this time around if the user will not back off from these threats and personal attacks ("you cybernetic al-Qaeda wannabe. Nobody hijacks my pages and gets away with it"). EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Number57 and a page move

    We had a page titled Barkan. That was moved without discussion to Barkan, Israel to make way for the current disambiguation page. As Barkan is not in Israel and is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank that was then moved, again without any discussion, to Barkan, Shomron. Now Shomron is the name of the regional council that Israel includes this settlement in, but there is a problem with that name as well. Shomron, the Hebrew for Samaria, is fairly clearly disallowed as a place name per the naming conventions WP:WESTBANK that were created under WP:ARBPIA2. Number57's move from Barkan, Israel is not problematic, it is the move to Barkan, Shomron that is. I have tried to rectify this with two different moves, each being met with Number57 moving it back (in violation of the 1RR I might add). He says that the only allowed move is back to Barkan, Israel if there is a challenge to Barkan, Shomron, as though that undiscussed move was the new consensus when he moved it from there. I find this manifestly unfair, with an admin enforcing his preferred name and demanding consensus to change from it, when he never had consensus for the change. So, ANI, what recourse do I have here? nableezy - 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And a note, Im not as AE as I dont think there is anything bad faith about this (well except for the 1rr move vio), but procedurally there is a problem here in that a new wholly undiscussed and immediately challenged page move is being enforced through reverts. nableezy - 19:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WESTBANK is a guideline and as it says on top, it can have exceptions. In this case, Barkan is in the Shomron regional council and it makes perfect sense under naming guidelines to have it as Barkan, Shomron, same as how we have villages under "XXX governate" when they are Palestinian villages. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place for the content dispute, this is the place for the procedural issue. nableezy - 21:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've pointed out to Nableezy, I moved the page from Barkan, Israel to Barkan, Shomron in line with our naming convention for West Bank settlements, and also that this is not a WP:WESTBANK issue. He then moved it to a different title which I was opposed to, so I moved it back. I advised him that if he was not happy with my move, he should move it back to where I moved it from, not to a third title. As he moved it to a third title, I don't see a problem with reverting his move. I then requested that he do a WP:RM if he was unhappy. However, despite this and me advising him that a fourth title he proposed was not suitable, he went ahead and did it anyway, so I moved it back again.

    Unfortunately, Nableezy's conduct throughout this dispute has been poor – starting with a claim that "We dont have any other article on a settlement disambiguated by regional council", showing he didn't actually read my edit summary nor even bother to check whether what he was saying was true (there are in fact over 20 settlements disambiguated by regional council, which are now listed on my talk page. He has been asked several times to do an RM, yet made another move, is continuing to argue on the talk page and now is wasting people's time here, together with making a false accusation of 1RR (my reverts of his moves were on 25 and 27 December, two days apart). I am still bemused as to why he refuses to start an RM. Number 57 22:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Im bemused as to why it is that you think you can move a page without consensus and require consensus to change that. You know full well that your move is challenged, but you continue to insist that your move is what requires consensus to change from. Why is it that your move, which explicitly violates an established consensus that was a result of an arbitration decision, why is that this is the move from which an RM must be requested. Why is it that you may enforce your chosen name absent a consensus and demand a consensus to change it? nableezy - 23:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So if my move was challenged, why didn't you move it back to where I moved it from? That's how it works. Number 57 00:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I see Nableezy is making even more of a mess of this by moving the DAB page and is still refusing to start an RM... Number 57 01:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, the DAB page is at Barkan (disambiguation) and the settlement article is at the most neutral possible dismabiguator, which is Barkan, West Bank, (although Barkan (settlement) would be neutral as well). This makes no political statement, only a geographic one. Anyone who disagrees with this should open an RM discussion on the talk page, used for controversial moves, and not take it upon themselves to move it. Everyone is also reminded that Discretionary Sanctions are in effect for this topic area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A reminder that WP:WESTBANK is a guideline, and not mandatory, and cannot be trotted out as a "rule" which would override a local consensus at an RM discussion for this specififc article about this specific place. It can, however, be cited by participants in the RM as an example of community consensus for one choice or another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Ironically you have violated the ARBPIA rules with that move – specifically reinstating a reverted edit without gaining consensus (it was previously moved to Barkan, West Bank and moved back). Would you mind moving it back? As far as I can see, the RM should take place whilst the article is at Barkan, Shomron. Cheers, Number 57 10:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have violated no rules, and, no, I will not move it back. Unlike you, I have no POV in this matter, except to maintain neutrality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken:, you actually did violate the ARBPIA rules. Youreinstated a reverted edit without gaining consensus. That is forbidden. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 14:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Undoing non-consensus moves to a neutral place so that an RM can take place there violates nothing, at least not in spirit. I have no dog in this hunt, and don't particularly care what the outcome of the RM is (although I disagree that the settlement fulfills PRIMARY TOPIC, given the list on the DAB page). If an admin wants to hit me with the banhammer for utilizing WP:COMMONSENSE, so be it. In the meantime, the article is in a neutral place, just waiting for a formal RM discussion which no one seems to want to start. I suggest this thread be archived, as it now serves no useful purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether I agree with it or not, you did violate ARBPIA. And I don't agree that the article is in a neutral place. We are singling out this article out of all similar articles. And I did make a suggestion on the talk page. If as you say you have no dog in the hunt, then you shouldn't be reverting without consensus. I'm not going to bring you to AE but people have been blocked for much smaller violations of the rules. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    e/c @Beyond My Ken: But you haven't undone a non-consensus move (undoing it would mean moving it back where I moved it from – i.e. Barkan, Israel; you have actually redone a non-consensus move), nor have you moved it to a neutral title (it was moved back from the West Bank title for a reason). I'd also be interested to hear what POV I apparently have here. Number 57 15:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly is there rule against reinstating an edit without gaining consensus? Because that is exactly what Number57 did when he moved it back to Barkan, Shomron twice. And again, please stop with the disingenuous then move it back to Barkan, Israel. The status quo before this was not Barkan, Israel as you continue to dishonestly portray it as, but rather at Barkan. You do not get to demand a consensus for reverting your undiscussed move. nableezy - 17:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the new ruling from the esteemed members of ARBCOM. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So then Number 57 did exactly that here and here did he not? Why exactly is he complaining about people violating something that he explicitly violated multiple times? nableezy - 17:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* I was not reinstating a reverted edit (my move was not reverted) – I was reverting your moves, which occured after mine. Is this really so hard to understand? Number 57 21:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikiwatcher99

    Wikiwatcher99 is blocked for 10 days.(non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Wikiwatcher99, an apparent SPA, is disrupting an AfD for Jay Chen. Making accusatory comments. Objects to AfD but does not show notability, instead is accusing me of ulterior motives. Has edited only Jay Chen and Norman N. Hsu.

    The subject, Jay Chen does not appear notable. Ran for the US House but lost to incumbent. Was once a school board member. Now a trustee of a community college in California. Never held political office. I came upon the article by way of Norman N. Hsu which was not the Norman Hsu I was looking for. I've also nominated that article for deletion for the same reason. Neither of these fellows have reliable sources to indicate they are notable per guidelines. Apparently, Jay Chen was on Fox News and Wikiwatcher has accused me of seeing the broadcast and immediately wanting to delete the page because he says I'm working for the Republican Party. I'm not, btw. He's disrupting the AfD and seems to be using bully/battle tactics and, what?, Republican shaming??? I'm not a Republican, either, btw. Please restrain so the AfD can proceed without further incident. He's already voted "remain," so a block would do no harm to his vote. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    1. [155]
    2. [156]
    3. [157]
    4. [158]
    5. [159]
    6. [160]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:DanHamilton1998

    As shown by their talk page, this user has continuously engaged in vulgar threats and battleground activites against any user who attempted to delete or change their COI articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann (at their 1st AfDed article), and their newest contributions at this talk page emphasize them, and 2 attempts at "substantiate your claims" were unattended. Repeated NPA warnings at their talk page, including the last ones with threats of indef blocks, have not helped, and including efforts at mentoring how Wikipedia works. Last ANIs about hostility were here and here. WP:NOTHERE applies given the overblown hostility. Note, before anyone asks about notifying, I was not even going to touch their talk page given the continued harassment. Someone else is welcome to, perhaps someone who is uninvolved. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified user. Amortias (T)(C) 22:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If I had every article I created AFDd by one user, I would be rather frustrated as well. I see nothing vulgar about their complaints at this discussion though I will agree there are some personal attacks in there. Pinging Marchjuly since they've had significant interaction with them. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SwisterTwister: I don't see a single edit by you to their talk page, other than the rejection notification automatically generated by the AFC review tool. Yet you've nominated two articles by this still fairly new user for deletion. The second one was deleted without their having a chance to defend it. And yet when they object at someone else's talk page, you still do not apologize to them for this substantial oversight, but rather report them at AN/I for hospitility? I'm sorry, since you clearly don't realize, but nominating someone's articles for deletion without notifying them is itself a hostile act. Next time you AfD an article, inform the creator. It's a necessary courtesy. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but in this case, I commented at the relevant AfDs but all I ever got was hostility, everything else here shows that "Assume good faith" was not taken into consideration. However, I will note that the user continued editing the page while the "AfD template" was in place, so I'm not sure how it was overlooked. Also, in considerations to the last 2 ANIs for hostility, I see no other alternative but this. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now we're here so it can no longer be avoided. But it could have been avoided in the past by notifying the editor of the AfD - both times - which is something expected when one nominates an article for deletion. Like you, I have always started AfD's manually; that has never prevented me from informing at a minimum the article creator, and in fact it's far from the fiddliest step in the process or the easiest to forget. I am assuming good faith that you searched for evidence of notability rather than dismissing the articles because you (like me) have little personal affinity with the topics. But you also owe it to your fellow editors to actually speak to them, rather than assuming they use their watchlists or can otherwise intuit that they need to respond somewhere. This is especially a consideration with new editors, such as those you deal with at AfC - like this editor. Hostility breeds hostility; you have been (unintentionally) uncivil yourself. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok is there some way to protect me from SwisterTwister they obviously are obsessed with bothering me and doing everything in their power to stop any article I write including breaking rules of Wikipedia and ignoring facts. This is clearly personal I have no idea why SwisterTwister has a problem with me but this is pretty pathetic behavior. Can someone block them from going after everything I do? DanHamilton1998 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DanHamilton1998, yes SwisterTwister made a mistake, but your behavior, and your grossly inaccurate comment above are not appropriate. He is a solid editor but he, like everyone else, is not perfect. Please refrain from personal attacks and try to be more civil; it is not too difficult.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I was the one who started the discussion which is seems to have led us here, so I figure I better comment. My post was just meant to point out that DanHamilton1998 was, as the creator of the article, not notified about the Ed Brown AfD and, therefore, it was understandable that he would be upset and post this. I also feel the DanHamilton1998's frustration was probably further increased because the draft had actually been approved and added to mainspace by one AfC reviewer only to be nominated for deletion shortly thereafter by another AfC reviewer. It would have been best for SwisterTwister to notify the DanHamilton1998 of the AfD and not assume that he would find about it in some other way. In the same way, it would have been best for SwisterTwister to notify DanHamilton1998 of this ANI discussion instead of asking someone else to do it. If you're going to start an XfD or ANI or whatever, then you have to be willing to complete all the steps in the process. However, I don't think this kind of thing warrants any admin action simply because I don't believe it was done out of malice or as some sort of personal vendetta. I just hope that SwisterTwister learns from this experience and is a little more aware of this kind of thing in the future and how it can quickly lead to problems such as this. Adding a relevant notification template to a concerned editor's user talk does not take much time and does not require a huge amount of effort, but it can go along way to helping avoid problems between editors.
    As for DanHamilton1998, I understand he is frustrated, but I've tried to explain to him how Wikipedia works and how it's best not to make things personal. For sure, it's unfortunate that he was not notified about the AfD, but I don't think that means someone is out to get him. Articles are nominated for deletion all the time and mistakes in the process are made. Moreover, multiple editors !voted "delete" in this particular AfD, which might indicate that SwisterTwister's nomination was not as frivolous as DanHamilton1998 believes. Of course, DanHamilton 1998 is perfectly within his right to ask for the AfD close to be reviewed at WP:DRV based upon the fact that he wasn't notified, but resorting to personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations is not acceptable at all. Given the circumstances, however, a block for WP:NOTHERE seems inappropriate because DanHamilton1998 has been making good faith attempts to improve Wikipedia. Rather, I think it needs to be stressed that on Wikipedia it's sometimes best to take a step back and let things cool down a bit before hitting the "Save changes" button and that it's also a good idea to seek help from more experienced editors when having problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, however, Marchjuly is that there were repeated threats of blocks which had no improving effects to the hostility thus why we are here at ANI, and because I saw no other better alternative as I noted above. There's a difference between "upset because of an article" and repeatedly violating policies. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that SwisterTwister can hold an editors work hostage like this out of pure personal malice is pretty terrible and not what Wikipedia stands for. SwisterTwister has drug me into another battle so here I am I will stop at nothing until your actions are reprimanded, you won in dragging me into this again, I hope it brings plenty of joy to your life SwisterTwister DanHamilton1998 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DanHamilton1998, please just DROPTHESTICK. We're here, it's happened, and the best thing for you right now is to back off. Clearly mistakes have been made on both sides, but you're making things worse for yourself. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DanHamilton1998's behavior is ongoing as shown by ST's links to other ANI's (p.s. I should of been pinged to this as i have opened ANI about this behavior in the past) and its becoming an issue that can be easily resolved by admin action. I'm also pinging Oshwah as he was involved in the last few ANI's. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 16:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone and boldly closed a new section below as its identical to the complaint mentioned here. Amortias (T)(C) 16:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno, Zppix, it appears that the issue only lies with ST and yourself. For everyone else that has interacted with them (see their talk, Jo-Jo Emeritus' page, etc) they're fairly pleasant. I think this is a case of some misunderstandings, some unfortunate circumstances, and bit of hotheadedness (on both sides). Now, I'm not necessarily condoning Dan's behaviour, but merely saying that the original NOTHERE complaint is awfully one-sided. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the people unfamiliar with the history, I was patient since I had reviewed and helped at the Draft:Bill Hillmann but nothing but hostile attacks happened, and I was not "the hothead", I took this here because of the clear past ANIs and how any attempts at changing were made with no effects hence another ANI. The evidence speaks for itself and my talk page continues to be filled with attacks even into today (see history), I myself have stayed away from his user despite these attacks and ANI (hence why I never sent an ANI notification). SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding onto this, Oshwah has attempted mentoring Dan, and was successful until recently. (I can release IRC logs proving that Oshwah has infact mentored and has said it worked until now if all parties approve). Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Copying my note from DRN: Despite extensive discussion in this ANI case, User:DanHamilton1998 created another ANI case here and DRN case here. Seems like forum shopping. The DRN case will be provisionally kept open as a reference point until the ANI discussion here is closed. Once closed, the DRN case will be closed and archived. --JustBerry (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - DanHamilton may be "fairly pleasant" with other editors, but that was only when he got what he wanted Primefac. Look what happens when he does not [161] [162]. I have not seen SwisterTwister act so inappropriately so I do not know why DanHamilton is given such a huge leash to insult others. I understand SwisterTwister made a mistake, but why does that excuse the continous harassment from another editor?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The filing at WP:DRN was a good-faith mistake due to what appears to have been a typo in advice to User:DanHamilton1998. The proper forum should have been DRV, Deletion Review. I have closed the DRN filing. Unfortunately, it appears that we have here two editors who do not like each other, and need to find a way around each other. (We know that interaction bans do not work well.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment)Just for reference, not all of my interactions with DanHamilton1998 have been pleasent as can be seen here, which is based upon this discussion. I think he's pretty passionate and maybe a little possessive about the subjects he edits, which unfortunately can sometimes create issues with others. I don't think further exacerbating this situation by starting an ANI thread about SwisterTwister and trying to bringing this to SwisterTwister's user talk, especially by adding comments like this to threads started by others which have no connection at all to what's going on here, was a wise thing to do. Passion is a good thing to bring to Wikipedia editing, but it's also important to be willing to take a step back and let things cool down so that proper process can run its course. While I don't think a block for NOTHERE is warranted because I feel DanHamilton1998 sincerely wants to contribute to Wikipedia, the community does have the right to block any editor it feels is being unnecessarily disruptive as a way of preventing further problems.
    My suggestion to you DanHamilton1998 is to just let this be and leave it for the community figure out how to best resolve. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which can use some cleaning up/improving in one way or another. You can pick one at random, or look for ones whose topic interest you and just be bold. Nobody will jump all over you for making good faith mistakes, and this might be a good way for you to learn more things about Wikipedia editing and Wikipedia in general. Seeing how experienced editors edit and apply Wikipedia's policies/guidelines is really good way to improve your own editing skills in my opinion. You can also, if you want, take a sort wikibreak for the New Year, let your batteries recharge, and come back feeling refreshed for 2017. You have already been warned a couple times by the community that certain behaviors are not acceptable, so continuing to engage in that kind of thing will almost surely lead to your account being blocked.
    As for you SwisterTwister, you are obviously the more experienced editor here and know that dealing with new editors (especially SPAs) can be a trying experience sometimes. You should have notified DanHamilton1998 of the AfD not only as a courtesy, but also to ensure that all sides get a chance to participate in the process. You've nominated two articles created by DanHamilton1998 and each time you failed to notify him of the discussion. You prodded one of those article first, did not notify DanHamilton1998 of the prod, but had no problem referring to the prod in your AfD nomination of the article. I'm not sure why you didn't notify DanHamilton1998 of any of these things and it certainly doesn't justify any of his personal attacks made against you, but it might have helped contribute to his perception that you're out to get him in some way. It might help resolve this if you just acknowledge this and make it clear that you aren't out to get him.
    XfDs/CSDs/PRODs need to be transparent and follow proper process for them to mean anything. You just started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RocketLoans and yet you did not notify the article's creator. Primefac went and did that here. You also did not notify the creators of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olwen Kelly, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Fish (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungry Harvest, so Primefac went and did those notifications as well. You also do not seem to be adding delsort tags to your nominations. These are a little things which may be optional to some extent, but which are important to ensuring that XfDs progress as smoothly as possible and things that help attract editors familiar with what's being discussed. It may add a few extra steps to the process, but it's not something that takes an unreasonable amount of time and nothing that an editor who is regularly nominating articles for deletion should not be willing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alanakalanian

    Alanakalanian (talk · contribs) made her first edit to Cenk Uygur in March 2013. After a long absence she returned this week to the related article of Ana Kasparian, where she tried to link Kasparian to Uygur's denial of the Armenian Genocide and linked to her personal blog for reference. Every edit she has made has dealt with Uygur and genocide denial. Trackinfo and I subsequently pointed out that the edits were in violation of numerous policies, leading her to make ad hominem attacks against us. Her user page has an ominous warning: "I am a warrior for truth and justice. I will not quit till I prevail..." Can someone take a closer look at this? Seems like an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE.LM2000 (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    She's unconvincing and terribly repetitive. For somebody who says (in Talk:Ana Kasparian) that "I have been a user here for many years", it seems odd that User:Alanakalanian seems not to know how to sign her posts. If she's up for reasoned argument, she is of course entitled to argue that certain Wikipedia editors are guilty of systemic bias, holocaust denial etc: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is probably the best place for her to do so. Talk:Ana Kasparian is obviously not the place to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:J-lorentz

    (non-admin closure) Subject blocked by Nyttend. Images deleted on Commons Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:J-lorentz (contributions) editings in Indonesia article is disruptive and thinks he/she owns the article. Wikipedia:Ownership of content. He/she also always uploads images that he/she don't own, without photographer's permission, from Google Images, mirrored, or cropped the watermark of the photograph's owner, and creating fake Metadata. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/J-lorentz). He/she applies "his/her" photographs to many articles. Most of his images has been reported and speedy deleted, and leaving Indonesia article and other articles broken and missing images. Administrators, please take an action for this disruptive user. Rantemario (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours; I couldn't delete the Commons images because someone else got to them first. Please re-report if the user resumes disruption. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Nyttend, I don't see any blocks in the block log. Was the editor blocked or not? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Somehow I forgot that one little detail! Now remedied, and thank you for catching my mistake. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User Shashaanktulsyan has been indeffed by Oshwah for issuing legal threats. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

    In response to my addition of a {{COI editnotice}} template, User:Shashaanktulsyan decides to reply with a legal threat (see previous edit as well). The article seems have a history of BLP violations (both against the subject and others). However, it also has a history of dubious editors popping up and trying to puff up the article (using unreliable sources)/WP:BLUDGEONing discussions and !vote stacking. All of this is disruptive and I hope others can look into it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's a legal threat. When fans and supporters edits like a paid editor and COI editors, the good faith wikipedians face problems. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marchjuly: & @Marvellous Spider-Many: & @Lemongirl942: "Good faith" is ok, but purposely repeating the same thing again and again and again and again for 2 years means what? Surely there is something wrong here. This topic has been debated and discussed over for a period of 1.5 years. The dubious content was removed after almost 1 year of debate. And then again Ms. Lemongirl942 tried to bring it up again as a separate wiki article. Then again the second debate on the exact same topic happened. You can see the discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nityananda_sex_scandal . There is overwhelming vote for the content to be removed. Yet I don't understand why is it comming back to wikipedia again and again and again. And Lemongirl942 very well followed the discussion end to end because she only had raised it. Even if she has a different subjective-view-point (which is fine) she very well knows that is has been discussed for almost 1.5 years and yet she is telling, "I think this is NPOV, I would prefer retaining it". Please explain how she has the right to override the vote of whoever voted it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nityananda_sex_scandal ? If this is the case what is the point of going through all this. And I get a message, ' "f you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution." ' What do we mean by follow the proper channels? What has been happening since past 1.5 years. Let us talk straight forward. So does it this is going to go on perpetually? And the same issue will be proped up by any random editor and continuously WP:BLP violations will be done. If that is the case, please make it clear. Why this hypocrisy? As if everyone is jobless. I don't understand what benefit people gain by writing abusive content in biography of a living person. Seriously. And also note in the voting I voted for the content to be retained, but still it was removed for WP:BLP. The problem is not that the content is there. I want it to be there. The problem is, only those versions of it is being retained which just give half the picture and have been removed for this reason by various editors for past over 1.5 years. And I don't know what is so hard for some editors to read the previous discussion and follow this. I very well said, let us have the full content and I fully agree with Lemongirl942 that all that should be there along with other facts also. But the discussion which lastest 4 months concluded that it should be removed. So on what basis is this being brought back again and again and again and again and again. When will it end? Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How about you make a statement that either retracts or clarifies that what you posted is not a legal threat? Because you WILL be banned for it. --Tarage (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shashaanktulsyan: Regardless of how long the discussion has been ongoing and the direction it has taken, it is simply not considered acceptable to post a statement such as Also note, ideally wikipedia should completely remove this page if editors have decided to become accomplice with abusers, otherwise legal proceedings will have to taken against wikipedia to try and influence the outcome of any discussion or to discourage other editors from freely participating in it for the reasons given in WP:LEGAL. If you have a COI and have concerns with the article content, then please follow the steps listed in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. If you're not able to reach a consensus on the article's talk page, then try asking for assistance at a community noticeboard like WP:BLPN, WP:COIN, WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. Continuing to engage in discussion to try and resolve things may take time, but it's your best chance at a resolution. Continuing to make legal threats, on the other hand, will quickly lead to your account being blocked by an administrator and thereby completely remove you from the process. If your issues are with external media outlets and their coverage or lack of coverage of this matter, then you should discuss the issue with them and not try and use Wikipedia as a place to right some great wrong. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A pretty blatant legal threat. The user must be indef'd at least until (or if) they recant and disavow that threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Reported user has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. The user was given plenty of time to acknowledge Wikipedia's policy on legal threats and redact or withdraw the threat in question, and failed to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommend also adding a longish semi. The article has a looooong history of fairly egregious BLP violations. (Ping @Titodutta: as most recent protector.) I really don't know who this guys is, and I think...came across the article from RC feed, but apparently he's...like...the Indian love child of Jerry Falwell and Kim Kardashian. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Range block for disruptive LTA

    Blocked for another 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There's an LTA who edit wars to add unsourced content, blank citations, change wording to be incorrect, and is generally disruptive. You can read about it in this LTA report. On 5 July 2016, 2a02:c7d:9ec5:3800::/64 was range blocked by Krakatoa Katie for 45 days. The range has become active again recently, and the edits are still disruptive:

    Individually, many of these problems are not major, but whenever anyone tries to fix any of these issues, he edit wars indefinitely to maintain them. You can see some of his edit warring in Vampire in Brooklyn, Eddie Murphy Raw, 12 Rounds 2: Reloaded, and Absolutely Anything. Some of these have since been semi-protected because of him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    North korea juche

    An RFC is not a vote, closures are based on policy-based consensus, and those who take a side in the discussion should not close them. The discussion is ongoing, and there is no admin action required here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    they overturned my closure of rfc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Korea#Should_we_use_juche_in_the_infobox.3F, and then said it was closer to "non consensus" when 6 out of 10! i guesse i want someone to re close it it consensus to include juche in the infobox with support of 6 out of 10 192.44.242.19 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:The Quixotic Potato

    It looks like the responses and discussion here have drawn to a close, so I'm going to wrap up this report, leave my final words, and be done with it. Looking through the context of this issue, as well as the discussion in this ANI report, I believe that the underlying issue here (and something I highly recommend that The Quixotic Potato take from this and improve on) is the failure to discern the difference between comments that express legitimate concerns regarding an editor's contributions or editing behavior from those that violate Wikipedia's civility and personal attack policies. Another underlying issue also appears to be the inability to discern which type of discussions that expressing these concerns would contribute positively and toward the topic on-hand from other discussions that they would not. In this case, making comments such as the one that became the center of this ANI report (especially given the word choice and manner in which it was stated), and in a discussion over content-related matters will generally be seen as unconstructive and not aimed towards building a consensus. Many editors have expressed that the comment, it's timing, and the context in which it was made in response to - was inappropriate. If The Quixotic Potato has legitimate concerns stemming from another editors contributions or behavior, he should create or participate in a relevant discussion and express these concerns with supporting evidence and with improving and maintaining the encyclopedia as the primary goal and focus. I urge The Quixotic Potato to be mindful of comments made towards other editors, and to take the time to understand the difference between concerns and attacks, as well as the right time and place to express them. Should problems in this area continue to occur and without care, administrative action can be implemented in order to correct the action if needed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:The Quixotic Potato has called another user an extremist [[163]].

    I asked him to withdraw the statement [[164]]

    His response what to say it was not an insult and I need to make sure of my facts before I falsely accuse someone. [[165]]

    As far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong) that a PA is still a PA even if factually accurate.

    In addition he is arguing some pretty spurious arguments on the SPLC talk page, and making other comments that boarder on PA's in that they are about the editors and not what they say [[166]].

    I think the user is clearly to involved in the topic to be a constructive editor.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note there is a difference between "to" and "too", "border" and "boarder" and "what" and "was". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you would like to address the actual points made is is not a breech of policy?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    breach. I didn't do anything wrong. You can call me a potato because I am a potato. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see he is making no effort to actually explain how his actions are within policy, and is a tendentious editor (at best). I will bow out for a bit and let other editors take over.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehm, I actually did explain why that action is allowed: "You can call me a potato because I am a potato". On my talkpage I wrote: "Saying an extremist is an extremist is not an insult. They are usually quite proud of it, and they dislike those who have a more moderate opinion. I would ask you to check their contribs before falsely accusing me of insulting anyone." (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Quixotic Potato - I disagree. Your response here appears to violate Wikipedia's policy by making personal attacks at David A, and clearly so. You tell him that he "hold[s] far far more bigoted views than the average muslim" and doesn't realize it, imply that his views are being controlled by others by stating that you hope he can "escape from those who are in control of your worldview", and ending with "islamophobia and antisemitism are two sides of the same foul-smelling coin" and "Extremists like Motsebboh are not your friend". This is absolutely not a constructive comment that exists to provide direct input in discussion to the request for comment taking place on the article's talk page. Per Wikipedia's policy on civility, you're expected to keep discussions toward content, and not toward other users. Please do not make further uncivil responses or engage in making personal attacks toward other editors. This violates Wikipedia's policies on how to interact and collaborate (which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please specify which part you mean. Have you checked their contributions before falsely accusing me? Everyone's worldview is controlled by others, but people have to decide who to trust. You act way too quickly; please do some research before posting a comment. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm failing to understand what "part" of my response needs to be specified or explained further to you. The user's contributions are completely irrelevant. To put things in context: David A responded to a vote comment citing a document (that may or may not be found to be relevant to the discussion) as part of his reasons behind his thoughts. Another editor responded believing such document to be unrelated to the discussion, David A responds with additional comments regarding the document, then you respond to him with this. I'm not suggesting that your response violated Wikipedia's policies on civility and making personal attacks - I'm telling you that it did. This response was unacceptable. Period. If further personal attacks such as this continue, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wanna make it through RfA, and handle cases like this, you have to do a lot of reading before you start writing. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah lol you did. Well, rnddude is giving a good example. Slow down. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your response here at all. Reading below, even if you did provide diffs to assert your thoughts regarding David A's contributions... how does that make your response acceptable, or a positive contribution to the discussion at-hand regarding the article? How is this response positively aiming to help the discussion come to a consensus? I made an in-depth thought and response here on my talk page. I believe that it clearly explains this situation and the issue at-large. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replied on your talkpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Without getting into the meat of the argument, Quixotic; you hold far far more bigoted views than the average muslim is pretty clearly an a comment about the contributor and not the content. Hypothetically if you were calling a spade a spade it might be overlooked. The fact is, you weren't. It is quite clear that David A is "passionate" about the issue of Islamic doctine and Islamic extremism, as I am assuming you are about Islamophobia. There is no need to go to such a low level to further your arguments. If you can't posit your case without commenting on others then either your argument is weak or you're not bothering to put up a strong one. RfCs are decided by the weight of the arguments, not the insults. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, check his contribs. I know it is a comment about the contributor, but it is based on their contributions. And as you can see I didn't really bother with that RfC, that is correct. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs Quix, you must provide diffs. You've been brought to AN/I for your actions, if you have any intent of defending your extremism comment you will have to provide evidence that the editor has espoused extremist, bigoted, or otherwise unseemly views that impact on the encyclopaedia. That would make your comment defensible. As it currently stands, you've called an editor bigoted and provided no evidence of such. I don't know where in their contribs to look. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the thread started about another comment, but if you want me to give you some diffs for that one then I will have to do some research. I haven't saved the links I dug up, maybe I should've. There are quite a few examples that illustrate what I mean. Most muslims do not spend a large amount of time trying to post negative information about groups they dislike on Wikipedia. Women, children and the elderly are the majority... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, that would at least give me some context to work off of. Though I may not necessarily draw the same conclusions as you do. The PewResearchCentre's study doesn't give any great confidence to Islamic doctrine and Muslim groups who subscribe to it wholly, much like with many other religions. If David has an issue with Muslims then I will have a chat to them about it on their talk page. Many criticisors of Islam forget the distinction between the faith and the person. I once heard it said that your faith is a product of circumstances beyond your control. If you were born in a Hindu family, you'd be a Hindu, a Buddhist family, a Buddhist, a Nordic family in the viking era, Thor, in Ancient Rome, Mars, or in Ancient Egypt, Amun-Ra and Kek. Etc, etc. Attacking the people for their faith is an issue worth addressing, the faith itself is not immune to criticism, nor should it ever be. Think of non-Catholics during the Medieval era for example. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a "strong" atheist (or, more precisely, I am a ignostic theological non-cognivist). My parents used to be vaguely christian, I was baptised and we went to church when I was very little, but all three of their kids are atheists, and later they also stopped believing. My opinion about (for example) ISIL is pretty clear. Muslim extremists would kill me if they would get the chance (you can read my userpage, it explains my POV). I believe that all Abrahamic religions are very very similar, and they are all incorrect. Just a bunch of made up stories from people who tried their best to explain natural phenomena. Most of it is basically a revamped version of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I am Dutch, so I also do not like nazis. Here in Amsterdam there are many muslims, and unfortunately my country also contains quite a few islamophobes. It is sad that they do not seem to realize that antisemitism and islamophobia are two sides of the same foul-smelling coin. Heck, islamophobes and nazis use the same propaganda techniques. I'll get back to you with some diffs, but that will take a while. The quote you posted below (the one I responded to) is an example, because the context is that we were talking about people that the SPLC listed as anti-muslim extremists. Like I said before "women, children and the elderly are the majority", most of them just wanna live in peace and accusing them of possessing "enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism" is of course a very very extreme point of view that isn't shared by many people outside of the alt-right and far-right. The SPLC also dislikes both antisemites and islamophobes, I think my opinion is quite similar to that of the SPLC. [167] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have heard of Majiid Nawaz but I can't remember where. Unless I am grossly mistaken, he is particularly critical of Islam, but, I don't recall him being anti-Muslim just severely anti-Islam. I'll get back to you on that if I can find where it was I'd heard of him. I'm happy to wait a day or two for you to find what you're looking for as needed. The quote you're referring to was, I think, a poor choice of expression. I do not believe that David had women and children in mind when he said that, but rather the (male) Muslims in the Middle-East and Africa who do - in some areas significantly - hold views that are not in-line with ours. Female circumsion, the death penalty for adultery, etc. But, I'll let you take the time to find the diffs before I exonerate or prosecute anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On that very same talkpage David wrote that the SPLC is "systematically targetting anybody who rationally criticises radical Islamism". If you look at the people on the list then most of them are clearly extremists, e.g. Horowitz said "the American left, whose agendas are definitely to destroy this country", Daniel Pipes is the source of the much-ridiculed claim that there are hundreds of “no-go zones” in Europe where Shariah law prevails and where non-Muslims, including police, are afraid to go, Walid Shoebat believes that all Muslim organizations in America should be the No. 1 enemy et cetera et cetera. I don't think I have to explain that those views are far more extreme than those of most muslims (especially the ones I meet here in Amsterdam). Majiid Nawaz was the only one I didn't know much about [168] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Topic ban.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    lol. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @The Quixotic Potato: Your statement that David A is more biggoted than your average Muslim. Are you implying that all Muslims are bigoted and that David A is just more of a bigot than the rest of the Muslim population? Either way this sort of comment makes it seem that you bias against Muslims (extremist or otherwise) would be sound cause for a Topic-Ban on the subject. Amortias (T)(C) 13:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ????? Please read before commenting. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments like these should get people topic banned from WP:ANI discussions. Anyway, this is boring, I am gonna do something a bit more productive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Amortias you have missed the mark by about a quarter-mile. Quix is clearly calling another editor extremist for referring to the average Muslim as extremist. Or rather they appear to perceive it as such, I disagree with their conclusion but am waiting for diffs. Your jumping in to tell Quix that they are biased against Muslims is unwelcome and unproductive. Please expend more effort into going through the content of the issue before posting your comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff here [169] specifically states It is sad that you do not realize that you hold far far more bigoted views than the average muslim I'm not sure how stating that someone else has far more bigoted views than a group of people can be considered appropriate without anything to back it up. If its poor wording and they meant to say unlike other/the majority/some Muslims you have bigoted views on... then its simply a case of wording being flakey, calling someone extremist or biggoted without evidence is still not helpful. Amortias (T)(C) 13:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Amortias, read the comment to which Quix is responding to; the average Muslim possesses enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism. Context, always important to have context. I by no means defend either comment, neither is of any use to the situation and in that respect I agree with you, but, I still find it not useful to claim someone is biased against a group without a more thorough examination then what is on the face of their words. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All of which is largely irrelevant, as the question is did The Quixotic Potato break policy, and is he a disruptive editor.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Change to total ban, I think it is obvious the user has a contemptuous attitude towards both the five pillars and users who disagree with him.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    lol. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Case to point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    in. And I would treat you differently if you would treat me differently. That is how life on this planet works. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment generally you would be hard pressed to get more than a warning to be less aggressive passed against editor A for calling editor B a bigot straight after editor B makes a bigoted statement. People might quibble that it should have been phrased 'your editing/opinion' rather than 'you'. But its basically semantics in order to comply with wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, if someone would ask me use different wording next time in order to be less blunt then I would. But Dutch people are infamous for being blunt, and we are often perceived as being very rude when we believe we are simply being honest. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, could you next time not call someone a bigot just because you think they are and try and word it so it is not an insult.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, seems like a reasonable request to me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Quixotic Potato: As an uninvolved editor, I started reading this thread and came to the opinion that it should be closed with no action after the first few comments. But the more I read (specifically, of your responses) the more I think some sanctions might be in order, if only to impress upon you the need to work with others here, instead of simply working alongside them. Your insistence upon offering corrections to Slater's comments strikes me as incredibly arrogant and dismissive. Your refusal to provide diffs after being asked by two different admins strikes me as evasive. Your opening of the ANI thread below strikes me as disrespectful to everyone else.
    I'm not 'piling on', and I'm not suggesting specific sanctions. My preference is still to see this resolved without sanctions, because in many ways I agree with you. What I'm doing here is simply letting you know what sort of negative effect your responses here are having on someone who approached this thread with a bias in your favor. I'm also advising you to get some diffs and use them to defend yourself, or else apologize and strike the comment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am a complicated person, you might wanna get to know me more before you judge me. But, like I explained before, "if someone would ask me use different wording next time in order to be less blunt then I would" (update: someone has, and I did, see above). I have noticed that it is quite difficult to be as diplomatic as I want to be in a foreign language. Not just in English, I have the same problem in other languages. I have a very large vocabulary in Dutch, and using a foreign language limits the ways in which I can express myself. I mentioned two diffs (1 and 2), but I can find many more if you want me to. I am very very arrogant, I won't deny that, but if you read my userpage then you'll discover that there is also another side to that story. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...you might wanna get to know me more... You see, that's the point. I don't know you very well, and because we're just two Wikipedians from two different countries, I'm not likely to ever get to know you well. From my point of view (and that of everyone else here), there's absolutely no difference between you behaving arrogantly, disrespectfully and dismissively, and you appearing to behave arrogantly, disrespectfully and dismissively due to some language difficulties. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are invited for a cup of tea with a stroopwafel, here in Amsterdam. I wrote: "And I would treat you differently if you would treat me differently." then Slatersteven posted a comment that was constructive and I responded with "OK, seems like a reasonable request to me". Respect is overrated, love is far more important. I usually treat those who treat me respectfully quite nicely (if I may say so myself), but I am known to annoy those who treat me in a way I dislike with perceived arrogance and dismissiveness. BTW I am here to fix typos, I strongly dislike typos and I've fixed many thousands of them. Some quotes from my userpage: "This user suffers from Bloaty Head". "This user is aware of the fact that he is a hypocrite". "This user knows that he knows nothing". "I hate my fellow-man because I'm hateful to myself!". So yeah, on the one hand I can be an arrogant prick if I want to, and I enjoy that if I think that it is well deserved, but I am not one-dimensional. And most people treat me far better so I return the favor. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Slatersteven

    No. This is clearly an attempt to "trade punches" and is on the verge of violating WP:POINT. ANI is not a game, and we're not going to play. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Slatersteven has falsely accused me (which I don't really mind), but then he insulted me by writing that I am "a tendentious editor (at best)". That is a clear personal attack (of course this is slightly sarcastic, calling someone a tendentious editor is kinda comparable to calling someone an extremist). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And now the user launches a tit for tat ANI, about a subject "he does not mind".Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read WP:INDENT and Straw man argument. I said I don't really mind your false accusation. The subject of this section is your personal attack. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And not a serious accusation, just taking the piss (by his own admission, he is just using this ANI to mock me) [[170]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked you politely to read Straw man argument but here you are misrepresenting what I wrote again. I wrote: "if you act like that you will get mocked. That is life." (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SwisterTwister

    (non-admin closure)Already being dealt with in the above section. No need for duplication. Amortias (T)(C) 16:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello out there in Wikipedia. I have a serious problem with an editor SwisterTwister they are continually breaking rules and ignoring policy in order to attempt to delete my articles. They have repeatedly ignored facts of notability and not informed me they've nominated my articles for deletion. I spent four weeks arguing a deletion nomination of notability for my first article which now has about 50 cites from the biggest news outlets in the world. SwisterTwister claimed the subject wasn't notable. Now with my second article SwisterTwister is doing the same thing. This is extremely odd. Is this what Wikipedia is? A place where one editor can hound another's work relentlessly without any merit to their claims against their articles. SwisterTwister also did not inform me about their nomination for deletion in my second article which is a clear policy rule break. Now I feel that they are targeting my work her personally. Please can someone help me get to the bottom of this? And help block SwisterTwister from attacking my work here? And breaking the rules while doing it? This is very disheartening this is not what I though Wikipedia was. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    POV edit warrior at Yes California

    Blocked for 1 week. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nansy131 has been aggressively removing sourced content from Yes California, no matter how many times they get reverted (by HaeB, Dawn Bard, and myself) and despite several warnings on their talk page. The edit comments are invariably something like "Removed content added by trolls"[171][172][173][174][175][176]. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User: Nivashkumaryadav

    He abuseth talk page access privileges while blocked, I taketh take page access away. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    abuse of talk page while blocked WNYY98 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Deprodding for "credible claim of notability"

    Policy on removing a PROD has been explained. There is already a thread, above, discussing this specific editor, so please continue the discussion there rather than here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As far as I can tell, all the valid grounds for deleting an article under WP:AFD are valid grounds for proposing deletion under WP:PROD. Both those articles reference the same list of reasons for deletion, WP:DEL-REASON. One user, User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR, has been on a PROD removal spree, each time giving "de-prod - credible claims of notability" as his rationale in the edit summary.

    I explained to him] on his Talk page that actual lack of notability is as valid a basis for a PROD nomination as for an AFD nomination, and that credible claims of significance bar only speedy deletion under A7. He replied that I'm wrong, and was incredibly derisive about it, indicating that he thought it was hilarious that I thought the way I did. I responded once, showing him that I couldn't find any source to justify his stance while giving him the link above to reasons for deletion that PROD and AFD share. I asked him what his basis was for his belief. He responded to that with this note on my talk page. He evidently saw no reason to show me any provision justifying his belief. And he's continued with his deprodding since then.

    I know that anyone can remove a PROD tag at any time anyway, but (a) the PROD process was created for a reason, in that it was seen as beneficial to Wikipedia, and (b) it follows that someone who is deprodding large quantities of articles based on a misconception is creating an unnecessary hindrance.

    The other user, in the end, told me that if I don't like it, I can go to WP:ANI. Well, here I am. If I'm wrong, will somebody without a scornful attitude please show me the provision that says that a "credible claim of notability" bars the use of PROD? And if I'm right, well, then I'm reporting the other user for his behavior in that, while, yes, anyone can deprod articles, doing so, in bulk, for an invalid reason is defeating an express Wikipedia purpose and is therefore disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed that there's already a thread above (which I haven't read yet) about the same user over the same issue. #User:1Wiki8... Largoplazo (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Contesting and removing a PROD for the reason of "credible claim of notability" is perfectly acceptable. It's not barred as a reason for a PROD nomination, but it is also not prohibited as a reason for contesting and removing the PROD. You, yourself, say "I know that anyone can remove a PROD tag at any time anyway", but if you want policy then see WP:PROD which says "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD" - and that's unconditional, not dependent on the reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you say that if somebody decided he doesn't like PROD, period, and made it his business to remove every PROD tag posted on this website every single day, rendering the entire PROD process ineffective, that the reaction of the community would be a collective shrug? I'm earnest about this, because when I choose PROD, it's out of courtesy, to avoid using the time of anyone else in a case that seems clearcut to me after I've done my homework. Surely there's value to that. If not, then I'll just stick to AFD. Largoplazo (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This is already being discussed above, and as I've probably already made abundantly clear in that thread, no one can probably dispute that a single, or even multiple PRODS can be removed for other reasons, but if an editor is using that to essentially do a run around the entire process, that seems disruptive on the face of it. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) @Largoplazo: Prod deletions are for articles which do not qualify for speedy, but whose deletion via AfD would be uncontroversial (i.e., pretty much a guarantee if discused). So, anytime a prod deletion tag is removed (even by the article's creator, even in bad faith, etc.) then that is seen as somebody contesting the prod. The next step then for the person who prodded the article is to start a AfD discussion for it (if they still feel that it should be deleted) and see what the community has to say. That's ideally how the process is supposed to work. What you seem to be describing is another editor being pointy by making lots of similar edits and enforcing policies/guidlines in one fell swoop project wide. That kind of editing can be considered disruptive since such edits are typically only done to make a point by trying to show how silly or unenforceable they feel a particular policy/guideline is. Is that what you feel this editor is doing? Did you also notice that there is also another ANI about this editor currently ongoing at WP:ANI#User:1Wiki8... which basically is also discussing this? Perhaps this one should be closed and you should comment there? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Largoplazo: It is entirely possible that an editor can remove PROD nominations in a disruptive way, but that would need to be addressed as a behavioural issue. Your generalised claim here that it is not permissible to remove a PROD on the grounds of "credible claim of notability" is obviously wrong - it is, in fact, a very very good reason (if correct) for removing a PROD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:2607:FB90:5E96:F5B0:0:49:A34D:B501

    (non-admin closure)Apparently you can revoke range blocks talkpage access, so KrakatoaKatie did. Amortias (T)(C) 16:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2607:FB90:5E96:F5B0:0:49:A34D:B501 (talk · contribs): The IP is range blocked but is making disruptive edits to their talk page, User talk:2607:FB90:5E96:F5B0:0:49:A34D:B501, transcluding pages so causing errors and adding it to project categories (warning – it will take time to load). Can talk page access can be revoked for a range block? I would say protect the page but they can just return to another one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page access revoked for the range. Katietalk 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:98percent

    A regular editor of Little Mix related articles, he/she is been adding false information to List of best-selling girl groups without a source, ultimately giving a fake source. I warned him/him in Talk page several times. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    1. What part of "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." did you miss? I have notified 98percent.
    2. I don't see any discussion on the talk page or the article talk page. He did provide a source, if you feel that's not a valid source, then discuss it on the talk page.
    3. AN/I should not be a first resort. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sir Joseph: I always forget the "notify" part. Btw, did you see the source he provided? officialcharts.com, just it, the website. No article, nothing else. An made up a title. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you say officialcharts.com is unreliable? [177] I'm not saying either way, but it looks reliable to me. Other articles on Wiki use it (which doesn't necessarily mean anything). Regardless, you should utilize the talk page and discuss, and not just throw around a warning template. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 18:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been other warnings from other people sent to this user. I don't pretend to know the difference between where we are and the normal "report user" section that I normally do, but those previous warnings should be considered. Kellymoat (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=757281803"