Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 31 December 2016

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Keri

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 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 & (, 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)

@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)

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)

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. 15:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

More snark, and an apparent refusal to respond when called to account for his behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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 . Additionally, I’ve seen Max make reverts with misleading or inaccurate edit summary, such as this one 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. , , , --DynaGirl (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

The issue has not disappeared. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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. Katie 03:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that this is annoying, but so is the lack of action. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• A great example of an article we just shouldn't have because, at present, it can only be a bunch of random quotations and incidents. EEng 17:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been AFd'd for the 2nd time. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Earflaps

Proposal

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

There is sufficient on evidence on Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Provisional support for community ban. Smoke from the gun obscures the sun. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC).
2. Comment user was indeffed at SPI here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
7. Support obviously. SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
8. Support. MER-C 06:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
9. Support. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
10. Support - Jusdafax 00:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Related

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 Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for these Guy. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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?) 22:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to have the list moved out of my userspace, not that you need my permission to do it. - Brianhe (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

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 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 . After insisting in adding comments skipping community input, and having his own way again with an irregular false summary line , (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). He is sometimes accompanied by ghostly editors.

The last straw, he comes back to his old habits, with a straight libel and misrepresention of mine . 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 , , , , , , . After two years of account, a clear case of recurrent and continuous litigating ways, and confrontational, toxic editing. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have a few comments here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re Asqueladd I should apologize for what my inexact comment on the history length of Asqueladd due to an oversight, he has done not many but significant edits in the EN WP, many of them related to national matters (Catalonia, Basque Country, etc.) . 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 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 and then I said this to make clear my position , 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 even when User:Valenciano had just pointed the problems with Asilah1981's intervention , 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 . 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 , but it is on the article's talk page and removed as provisioned by WP rules WP:RPA, not on Asilah1981's talk page. "Campaigner" was probably not the good word to use, but this is just a detail in comparison to the rest of evidence affecting Asilah1981, starting from one of his main problems, misrepresenting the sources I added above on the NYT article (and insisting on it!, even in the face of direct text evidence on the contrary). It is not the first time I identify manipulation of the sources also in other topics (for which I can add evidence here if requested) and I consider it a clear confrontation with the WP community and altogether a very damaging factor to the WP since it erodes trust on WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pablo.alonso is patently attacking me on his talk page, User_talk:Pablo.alonso, that is clear, with violation of WP:AGF in the face of which I am defenseless since it is his talk page. For the time being neither Asilah1981 nor Pablo.alonso have brought up any evidence, except for fuss. Pablo.alonso's talk page and summary lines , , . 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) ), , , .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1) Yes, I would very much enjoy having some kind of mentor, I don´t know 90% of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is fun and fascinating but, for most of us, now is the holiday season and we should all wind down a bit.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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? 12:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages's collaborative community guidelines. Safiel (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverted unsourced claims made yesterday by this user. The user has had multiple unsourced/vandalism warnings about editing this month alone. -- Whats new? 00:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

...and yet another "you don't understand my edits so I undid your revert" comment. A comment that also shows that he has still not understood the need for sourcing, and that he thinks copypasting from one WP article to another is OK. He has had several final warnings by now, and I really think it would be a good idea to give him a short WP:CIR block, or at least a stern note from an admin. He is enthusiastic and edits in good faith, but he does not edit collaboratively and doesn't seem particularly interested in slowing down to find out how Misplaced Pages works before lecturing others about it. --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FTR: After yet another revert back to his preferred (unsourced, copypasted) version without any attempt at discussion, I reported him to AIV, and Aaron has now been blocked for 31 hours for repeatedly adding unsourced/poorly sourced content. --bonadea contributions talk 16:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

User:1Wiki8...

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 00:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

Community imposed Civility Restrictions then? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ 05:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that's a thing. Sounds reasonable to me. Huon (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:INDEF seems wiser, that way you can fully censor me. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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 \\ 14:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages history, and the last bastion for every user who has ever been sanctioned. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Anybody can de-PROD anything... It sounds like you're using a Misplaced Pages 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)

@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 05:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

The user in question has blatantly continued to de-prod articles, even after being notified of this ANI discussion. Evidence: 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)

And MORE evidence, the user continues to de-prod articles. Evidence:. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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 21:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Indefinite block

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

• support - as nom. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Sure, if the user wants to mock any attempt at conversation, start this WP:POINTY thread, and then war it back in and mock the user who tried to do them a favor by removing it, then I don't see an obvious reason not to oblige them. They can ask for the Misplaced Pages:Standard offer in six months. TimothyJosephWood 17:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support- yup, clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, just troll people and get on everyone's nerves. Reyk _YO! 17:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Erzan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that the so-called "British" passport is actually issued by the UK. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing that says she "self-identifies" as British rather than English. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

I've deleted a couple of these recently:

• DAA K8
• Daa 2016 I9
• DAA K4

I would agree it does look like a bit of a rouge group of students -- samtar 17:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@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 17:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

add IndumathiD12 and Mahimitra as well. Nthep (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.*<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)

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)

@Nthep: Any joy? Just deleted another (Daa A7) -- samtar 14:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No replies either at talk pages or Edu/Inicdents. Nthep (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 20:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place for the content dispute, this is the place for the procedural issue. nableezy - 21:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Number 57 I think these might be the potential 1RR violations Nableezy is referring to on December 25 . I'm not commenting on the case at this time, but saying as an outsider to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues, thats what I thought the reference was to at a first glance. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The first of those is clearly not a revert; if it was, I would have been moving it back to simply Barkan. The edit history is there for anyone to check if they need. Number 57 00:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Beyond My Ken:, you actually did violate the ARBPIA rules. Youreinstated a reverted edit without gaining consensus. That is forbidden. 🔯 Sir Joseph 14:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 15:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

That is the new ruling from the esteemed members of ARBCOM. 🔯 Sir Joseph 17:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

*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)

• People continue to argue here, but I still don't see a formal RM request on the article's talk page, just more bickering. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Notified user. Amortias (T)(C) 22:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)
• @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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

• (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Rather, I think it needs to be stressed that on Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

The fact that SwisterTwister can hold an editors work hostage like this out of pure personal malice is pretty terrible and not what Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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 . 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)
• 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)
• (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editing and Misplaced Pages in general. Seeing how experienced editors edit and apply Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Olwen Kelly, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nate Fish (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages: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)

SwisterTwister

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

Hello out there in Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages was. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

POV edit warrior at Yes California

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". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Deprodding for "credible claim of notability"

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages purpose and is therefore disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

• @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)

User:98percent

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

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)

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 17:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@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)

Why would you say officialcharts.com is unreliable? 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 18:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

I definitely question the wisdom of bringing this straight to AN/I - as previously stated, there has been no attempt to discuss the issue on the article's talk page or even on the talk page of 98percent. I've just started a section on the talk page of the article - hopefully the people involved can work toward a consensus. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Meatpuppet incident at Albert Cashier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lots of Unsourced or Questionably Notable BLP creations

TBoz2011 has generated 14 actor BLPs in the last 72 hours which have been proposed for deletion by myself, CapitalSasha, Exemplo347, KGirlTrucker81, MassiveYR, and United States Man. There doesn't appear to be any slow-down in the creation of these BLPs and the editor has, thus far, been non-communicative. I'm sure this is a quite innocent case of a newly registered account unfamiliar with GNG and NACTOR (the actors in question all appear to have different agents so I strongly doubt this is a COI editor); I'm just wondering if there's some other way to get TBoz2011's attention? DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just in the process of writing a report about this editor. It seems to me that they are using an automated process to create these unreferenced stubs - the inclusion of obscure categories is something you wouldn't expect to see from a brand-new editor and the large amount of articles in such a short time is unusual. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have warned the editor to stop creating unsourced BLPs. A block will inevitably follow unless they do heed this advice. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I put something similar on the editor's talk page earlier, and 4 minutes later another unreferenced stub of a BLP article was created by them. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think an automated process have done that; his talk page is full of BLPPROD, XFD, CSD notices and simply refuses to communicate especially Kite placed a warning on his talk page and ignored it. KGirlTrucker81 01:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• On looking at the articles he has created, it appears that what he has been doing is creating articles for red-linked actors who are identified on various lists or other articles, in particular in relation to British children's television programs. Much as I am loathe to say it, if those articles had just one reference, they'd have to be kept at BLPPROD, and many would survive even an AfD. The real problem here is the unwillingness or inability to respond to communication, and frankly given the fact that all the notice he gets is a teeny little yellow flag at the top of the page, I'm not surprised he isn't responding. This is an unfortunate situation where it may be necessary to block him in order to get his attention; however, it would be helpful if someone was willing to help this new editor who seems to be doing the right things the wrong way. Perhaps the Teahouse? Risker (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I would very much agree, Risker, that blocking should be an absolute last resort. They haven't edited since Black Kite's post to their page, probably since they haven't come back online, so maybe we can just leave this thread open and see what happens when they return and then take it from there? DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This editor has posted another unreferenced BLP article today. If anyone can think of a way to bring the editor here to discuss the problem with their articles, I'd love to hear it. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Tiggerjay

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

User:Tiggerjay keeps posting to my talk page after I have repeatedly asked him not to. Could an administrator please ask him to stop? His constant accusations of wrongdoing on my part (including a bogus 3RRNB report) are getting close to actual harassment.

Note: I have already stopped interacting with Tiggerjay in any way and have unwatched the Reid Technique page. At this point I just want to be left alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Tiggerjay, per the above, please stop posting on Guy Macon's talkpage, or pinging him from yours. He has indicated he has voluntarily stepped away from the article in dispute (his last post there was on the 28th). Time to move on. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: - respectfully have you looked at the timelines here? I have not contacted or pinged Guy since he has stepped away from this article. But your comments suggest otherwise. TiggerJay (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

But for the record, I'd be happy to produce that my only interactions with Guy has been immediately following his controversial and disruptive edits. So while on the surface it appears that I have been harassing him following his requests to stop, the reality is that he is editing disruptively without engaging in consensus building by avoiding disucssions and claiming victim to uncivility. A comprehensive view of the evidence will clearly show who, thought their laungage and actions is acting disruptively and without civility. TiggerJay (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):It is ironic that Guy asks to be left alone when he continues to edit the article which is contentious. He is editing in a disruptive way when he asks not to discuss the changes he is making. He has continued to preach BRD without actually engaging in the discussion part. A review of the history at Talk:Reid Technique and then following the history of the article itself will show that Guy feels it is acceptable to "revert" or "edit" without seeking to find consensus, but rather acting unilaterally. As he has mentioned my AN/3R report of him, (diff), details a significant disruption this editor has caused. While not outright 3R which is why it was closed as "no violation", there is a clear history of disruptive editing.

He has reverted multiple edits without engaging in discussion. A fundamental part of wikipedia is that we seek consensus -- and when an item is contentious that we actually engage in conversation. To ask an editor to 'leave them alone' is a two way street, when if they want to be left alone, they should do likewise. I implore an admin to review the civility that has been exhibited in both directions, but this must be done through carefully evaluating the page histories as Guy is prone to deleting talk page discussion, page reversion, and inappropriate refactoring. Most recently he inappropriately refactored a talk page by moving content between sections of a talk page, causing a non-sequidor, which is completely inappropriate.(diff).

What is interesting is that Guy left out specifically that my first interaction on his talk page was extremely civil and AGF diff. Furthermore, while Guy remained combative, and responding without actually researching the matter, he eventually agreed the change was appropriate. diff .

While biased, I believe a comprehensive review of the chronological interactions between Guy and myself, by reviewing the histories, edit summaries and discussions at User Talk:Guy Macon, Reid Technique, and Talk:Reid Technique will demonstrate the reality of the situation, and that it is more than what is simply stated in the complaint above. TiggerJay (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

His last edit to the article was on December 28, followed by some slightlyunnecessary to and fro on the article talkpage. Your last post on his talkpage was on December 30. I have no idea who is right or wrong re Reid Technique, but pursuit of the dispute is going nowhere in particular (witness the recent 3RR report), and in the interests of productive editing it's time to drop it and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec)If you are told to stop posting on someone's talk page you do, it is as simple of that. Especially when they tell you to use the talk page of the article concerned. ----Snowded 07:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Respecfully I would ask, where would you say the correct venue is when an editor is acting disruptively? Last time I checked it was the user's talk page, particularly if they are not discussing it elsewhere. If you follow the edits you will see that he asks me not to talk to him, and then makes a very controversial edit on the article without participating in the discussion on the talk page. The most recent message, left on his talk page, was because he inappropriately, outside of the guidelines changed the talk page discussion. What venue outside of the user talk page would be appropriate? BRD doesn't work with him. So if he will not discuss, reverts my reverts, should I file an AN? TiggerJay (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of disruption, but I do see some evidence of harassment by you. If you can't reach agreement on the talk page raise a RfC to bring other editors in. If you genuinely think that someone is disruptive after than then bring it here but be careful it may not work out the way you want especially when you are dealing with experienced editors with a good track record as in this case ----Snowded 08:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Struck a word above. also, please note i am not allocating "fault," just urging a return to more productive editing by having this dispute come to a natural close -- Euryalus (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for not ascribing fault, and rightly so, I'm dropping the stick. I cannot recall when I picked it up, and am sorry for that. At this point I know I feel very worked up, and this AN simply furthers my own sense of feeling violated. But alas, there is no vincidation or justice to be found here, that is, no judgement, when ultimately we're talking about well intentioned editors (not vandals)... Thanks for your ear... Happy new year... -- hey, those rhyme! ;0 TiggerJay (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Normally I don't respond to what I believe are false accusations designed to draw me into a battle, but for the record I categorically deny that, as Tiggerjay repeatedly claims, I "will not discuss". In this edit I presented citations to reliable sources backing up my claim. In this edit I present what I believe to be policies and guidelines that tell us which option to choose, and in this edit I explain BRD to Tiggerjay in direct response to him showing that he does not understand the concept. None of those edits resulted in any response that in any way addresses what I wrote. Instead, I got repeated false accusations that I wasn't discussing (I suspect that to Tiggerjay only agreeing with him counts as "discussing") and a series of snarky, sarcastic comments that were clear attempts to get me to fight. Now, as often happens, it looks like Tiggerjay is going to walk away convinced that I am the one who was being disruptive and that, in his words, "there is no vindication or justice to be found here". And that's OK, as long as he leaves me alone. I just wanted to go on record as saying that the accusations are without merit. This is the last comment I will make on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• A quick review of Talk:Reid Technique shows that Tiggerjay has no idea on how to communicate in a collaborative fashion. In addition to bathing the article talk in condescension, Tiggerjay pursued Guy Macon to his talk page rather than calmly focus on the issues at the article talk where Guy Macon had already posted three comments. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I am not going to get into the dispute that has sparked this, but I do want to make one point. When someone asks you not to post on their talk page, then you don't. There is a longstanding consensus in the community that editors have the right to be left alone on their talk page if they so wish. If there is a serious need to communicate with an editor who has made it clear that you are persona non grata then you do so via an intermediary. Ignoring this kind of request in all but the most unusual and or urgent circumstances is almost always viewed negatively by the community. Whatever else is going on here is besides the point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not only "viewed negatively", if the behavior continues after a warning to stop has been issued, it has resulted in blocks being issued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Kuala Namu International Airport

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

Another incident similar to my previous report. I think this is the third or fourth time I report this similar incident. In the article, an anonymous user add a destination that does not exist. I remove it, but the user adds it back and he called me (sorry) "son of a whore". I had enough of this incident and I need the admin to help me to solve this problem. Cheers. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for a month for personal attacks. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock?

Over the past few months, an IP editor has persisted in creating disruption to cricket biographies, tours and templates. The IP will pop up and start making unsourced changes, before being reported and blocked. They'll (usually) turn up the following day, under another IP address and continue. Here are the main list of addresses:

• 180.234.248.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.234.232.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.234.61.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.148.210.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 116.58.202.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 116.58.202.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 116.58.202.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 103.25.250.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 103.25.250.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 103.25.251.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 103.25.251.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 103.25.248.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.234.70.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.234.57.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.234.84.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.234.160.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.234.166.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.234.172.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.234.163.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.234.165.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

As you can see, each one is either currently blocked, or has been blocked. Is it possible to get a rangeblock on these, esp. on the ones starting 180.234? I'd appreciate any help with this matter. Thanks. Lugnuts 10:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this possible? Note that 180.234.169.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is doing the same stuff today. Lugnuts 10:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This is all likely one single editor from Bangladesh who was recently blocked. I remember coming across an account like this, just can't remember who it was. It's multiple ranges over three ISPs -- Airtel Mobile, Banglalink Wireless, Augere Wireless, all of which allocate IPs very randomly over a large range. I'll leave it to someone more technically competent than me to figure out if range blocks can be done without much collateral damage. —SpacemanSpiff 10:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Quick block plz

Otrade (talk · contribs)

Obviously promotional username (fairly run-of-the-mill there), but user also created Octagon Strategy Limited and did so with Template:AFC submission/created manually inserted at the bottom of the article, for the apparent reason of making their article look as if it was accepted at AfC (it wasn't)... and then removed the speedy deletion template, but did so while adding filler text, and several blank lines to make the overall edit an addition of information rather than a net removal. Maybe this is coincidental, and I am failing to assume good faith a little, but it seems an awfully lot like a sock of a banned COI user intentionally attempting to circumvent our policies through clever (or not so clever) editing. TimothyJosephWood 15:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Promotional or not, you are still required to notify the user about this ANI thread, which you have not yet done. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I'm dumb. Thanks. TimothyJosephWood 15:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Task complete. Otrade (talk · contribs) has been notified on their talk page (by O Fortuna!). --JustBerry (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. That happened a while ago. ...And, is not actually a resolution of anything at all. This should be a simple username block at least, but posted here because of the additional issues that we should probably keep an eye out for others trying to use the same strategies. I'm glad I decided to look a bit deeper myself, because I almost just did janitorial cleanup thinking it was an accepted article until I actually started reading the crap that was in it. TimothyJosephWood 18:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 User blocked Discussion of other issues can continue if needed, but this could have just been reported at WP:UAA, where we deal with stuff like this all day, every day. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I filled the report out there first (part of why I failed to give a user notice) but posted here instead since it seemed to have more meat than your average "user name is X LLC" report, and I'd never seen that template used like that apparently intentionally. Anyway, this can probably be closed, I've poke around a bit since and it doesn't look like it's a larger issue. I should have followed my original intent. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Resolved per User:Timothyjosephwood's comment and block (by Beeblebrox). --JustBerry (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

User:JG4236

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

• JG4236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- appears to be a vandal only account (see , , , , ). Likely ROLLBACK of editing needed. Will notify user about ANI thread now. Quis separabit? 21:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn. Sorry. Quis separabit? 21:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Discouraging closure decisions and previous disruptions in article creation

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

Previously also a similar disruptive participation of involved editor User:Winged Blades of Godric in discussion and early closure of discussions, before seven days, was done by nominator User:Winged Blades of Godric. The article Income Tax Department (India) raids 2016–2017, was nominated with reason of content fork, the issues were addressed during discussion, complete removal of content forked content was removed, with new additions, article was in progress. Closure of article, under the reason of spin off or content forking, by User:SpacemanSpiff , .Junosoon (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just noting that the OP is currently under an Arb enforcement topic ban (for this very topic) imposed by me. —SpacemanSpiff 04:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see what the OP is getting at. The discussion ran for 7 days with, albeit, limited participation. The consensus was reasonably summed up by SpacemanSpiff. Nothing ANI worthy here. Blackmane (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I am claiming the reason of nomination, and addressal of issues during discussion, content fork was the primary nomination issue, which was addressed, my claim is when the article issues are being constantly addressed, with consensus varying for different reasoning for nominations, why, the article could not be improved. Junosoon (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC). The complain of spin off contents, were entirely removed , it was addressed in discussion, from topic, so how does closure under reasoning spin off holds.Junosoon (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Secondly, an editor who had expressed proposal was to merge in Article Income Tax Department not under the main article claimed by nominator and closing editor.Junosoon (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Junosoon seems to be referring to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Income Tax Department (India) raids 2016–2017. A read of User:Junosoon's contributions to that AfD does suggest some WP:CIR issues. To comply with the terms of their WP:ARBIPA ban, they must not continue to argue about deletions of articles related to the Indian economy. If they want to appeal their topic ban, the steps are laid out for them at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. That section points them to WP:AE or WP:AN as places to appeal. Opening a complaint about article deletion at ANI is a violation of their ban, since they are "topic banned (for six months) from content relating to the economy of India, including but not limited to taxation, currency and associated policy, process or practice". EdJohnston (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The article title was not Income Tax Department (India) raids 2016–2017 but Income Tax Department (India) raids 2016-2017. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• The confusion around the name is due to article moves in the middle of the AfD that caused a move of the afd too, but with a dash instead of hyphen. To EdJohnston's point, the OP has also appealed the topic ban at AN. —SpacemanSpiff 06:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• I have been informed that this discussion is against the violation of ban, which I wasn't aware, I have appealed for ban at Arbitration Enforcement , thanks.Junosoon (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Kindly note:I have made an appeal at more appropriate, section , sorry for inconvinence here, I wasnt aware of placing it at right place.Junosoon (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP editor on my talk page

This concerns Steppenwolf (band). An IP editor has made a legal threat against me on my user page. I think the page needs to be protected. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NLT and have directed them towards the WMF if they do wish to pursue. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Euryalus. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

At User talk:12.37.140.135, the blocked editor continues their threats and also threatens to organize a worldwide campaign to bring thousands of angry Steppenwolf fans to the article. Please, Euryalus or any active administrator, can you semiprotect Steppenwolf (band)? Cullen Let's discuss it 07:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Prefer not to do this pre-emptively. If the thousands of angry fans arrive it can be semi-protected at the time. But other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've pulled talk page access from the IP for continuing the threats, and I've added the article to my watchlist. I don't think we should protect it yet, but we can do so on any sign of the arrival of the THOUSANDS OF ANGRY FANS (sic). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP editor

Last month, an IP editor made some changes to the wording of the Somali Civil War article, which were reverted by Buckshot06. The changes (including the IP's wish that "state" be capitalised, and objection to use of the term "authorities" to refer to state institutions) were subsequently discussed at Talk:Somali_Civil_War#Editorializing and then the IP editor (whose precise address seems to change slightly every week or so) opened Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 145#Talk:Somali Civil War#Editorializing. KDS4444 closed the case when the IP apparently abandoned or lost interest in it. However, the IP has subsequently posted at User talk:KDS4444#Cordless Larry is editing his own editor review!, after I removed some comments they made at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Cordless Larry, accusing me and Buckshot06 of employing "propaganda techniques". This came after their earlier comments on my talk page that "you should erase your credentials from your user page, or better yet keep them and publish course transcripts with all but your contact information on them". They have now left further comments on my old editor review page (a process now closed), accusing me of "leadership toxicity". Moreover, they are also posting comments on the talk pages of IP editors I have previously left warnings or Teahouse talkback templates on, also accusing me and Buckshot06 of being "toxic leaders". See Special:Contributions/130.105.196.128. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The KDS4444 and editor review pages should be reasonably self-explanatory. Cordless Larry is quite fond of making personal attacks, calling me a "troll" for example, for no good reason. Cordless Larry and I have a conduct dispute. That does not automatically vindicate him. Is there a third party here that would like me to answer questions? 130.105.196.128 (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Not really. What I would like you to do is stop harassing people such as Cordless Larry and Buckshot. As for Cordless Larry calling you a troll when you act like a troll, I'm unimpressed by that as a "personal attack". If you want to take responsibility for your editing and edit on the same terms as the people you're attacking, please create an account. Blocking your latest IP unfortunately seems rather pointless, but there's one thing I can do: semiprotect Somali Civil War and Cordless Larry's editor review. Done. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, though the IP appears to have given up trying to edit the article against consensus and is just making talk page comments about me and Buckshot06 instead. I am happy to ignore them, but today's comments on the talk pages of IP users I've posted on seems rather disruptive (diffs here, here and here). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Larry. I did take a look at the range, with a view to blocking it, but there would have been a good deal of collateral damage. In view of your diffs, though, I could block the range just for a couple of days, I suppose. Done. Hope it will have some effect. Bishonen | talk 11:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC).

Thanks again - much appreciated. Should I revert those edits? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, do. I'm going out now. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC).

Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards