Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:27, 9 February 2017

User talk:Irondome/Archive 1

Dolphin-class submarine

Help for patrolling

Hi, I'm Jai98. I need help for reviewing the pages I created recently. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Happy New Year!

Dear Simon Adler,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2015)

Coffee production in Cuba – Robusta coffee beans at a coffee plantation in Viñales valley in Cuba Hello, Irondome. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Coffee production in Cuba Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Goods and services • Marie Serneholt Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2015)

The First Geneva Convention (1864) is one of the earliest formulations of international law. Hello, Irondome. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: International law Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Coffee production in Cuba • Goods and services Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Request for assistance

Hello Irondome,

I'm new to Misplaced Pages editing so I hope I'm doing this the correct way. I feel like I'm being harassed/attacked by two people with respect to an article where I am trying to make what I consider to be a small addition (a one or two-paragraph sub-heading). The individuals involved don't seem to be interested in reaching consensus; they seem to be interested in shutting me down. They also repeatedly threaten to 'take action' against me for edit warring, whereas I believe that their constant and wholesale reversion of (literally) anything that I write is in itself an edit war.

You have many kudos for diplomacy and whereas I am certainly capable of being diplomatic (and in fact worked as a 'diplomat' in my nation's embassy for a time), I am considerably less so when I feel I'm being threatened. I would be happy to discuss the situation with those involved, but it appears that they have no interest in doing so and that their goal is to 'win'. I've also realized that they know very little about the subject in question - they recite 'facts' as to why their view should prevail, however their 'facts' are wrong. I feel very much put upon and the issue has become rather upsetting.

I do feel that the persons involved have some sort of connections and emotional, or possibly political, involvement with the subject as their reactions (to me) seem entirely out of proportion to issue involved. However I don't like being bullied, which is why I'm not willing to just walk away and say 'never mind'.

Anyway, I hope that you can help me get this straightened out. If you don't have time right now I understand, please try to let me know if that's the case. The reason I'm asking you rather than someone else is that your offer to volunteer was one of most recent (I believe third-newest) so I believe that you are more likely to be available than someone who wrote several years ago, you seem multi-faceted, and you don't appear to have any overt political or philosophical biases (even though I don't feel the instant matter is or should be controversial, the very strong dislike I feel coming from the other parties makes me believe that there's some underlying reason other than disliking the two brief paragraphs I added to the article).

The situation as brief as I can make it: The matter involves a Misplaced Pages article named "Newton Public Schools". It is about a school district in Newton, Massachusetts, U.S. The schools that comprise the district are state-supported (called 'public schools' in the U.S.; I believe however that term has a different meaning in the U.K).

Most of the article is standard and innocuous; however there is a section at the end called "Controversies" which is the source of the problem. There were three sub-headings to the "Controversies" section; I have been trying to add a fourth; I also made minor changes in one or two of the other sub-headings so that they accurate.

The headings are:

1. Textbook controversy - the issue as to whether supplemental material used by high school students in history courses is inaccurate, biased, or anti-Israel has been an ongoing controversy in the community for several years. It has been the subject of newspaper articles and a "Call for Action" by Jewish, community, and education groups and has been the subject of media reports in several U.S. states and in Israel. (I think there were three or four sentences in this section). Also, in an unusual move, the district removed a widely used supplemental text and also removed items from a list of recommended sources.

2. Superintendent Plagiarism - the district's superintendent was found to have plagiarized a speech he gave during a high school graduation ceremony and was fined. In another district where this happened, the superintendent was forced to resign. (I believe there were two sentences).

3. Violation of State Open Meeting Laws - in connection with the plagiarism, the state Attorney General (government prosecutor) found that the school district and Chair of the School Committee violated state law on eight separate occasions. (I think three sentences).

all of the above, plus the events in the fourth section below occurred within a few months of each other.

4. Last year, the state Department of Education found that the district and Chair of the School Committee had engaged in illegal retaliation against a student whose parent had been involved in the textbook issue. As far as can be ascertained, this is the first time in state history that a standing administrator has been found to have violated education law (in this case, student confidentiality law). A federal investigation is ongoing.

I have just realized that the other editors have deleted a post I made in the 'Talk' section of the article and also deleted the last six months of History for the article. This is beyond outrageous.

This is the last couple of posts (including mine) from the Talk section:

This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2015)

Princess Leia with characteristic hairstyle cosplayed. Hello, Irondome. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Princess Leia Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: International law • Coffee production in Cuba Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

User:Asilah1981

Hi. I note your attempts to guide User:Asilah1981 and your kind offer of mentorship, and you would obviously be excellent mentor. I think we're looking at someone who clearly means well (in quite a passionate way) but who apparently just can't shut up when they need to and can't leave off the personal side of things. At ANI, Asilah1981 has been continuing the harassment/outing that is a key part of the problem, and I have, reluctantly, given them an indef block after I gave a very clear warning the last time they did the same.

Anyway, I've come here because I'm not averse to unblocking, but not without a genuine understanding of the problems (which include seven blocks in just a year) and some confidence that the problematic behaviour will stop. And I wonder if you have any thoughts on a way forward?

It strikes me that the subject of Gibraltar is one to which Asilah1981 has emotional attachment, and that maybe a mentorship period in which they accept a voluntary ban from the subject might be an idea. I'm also wondering if you might like to offer some mentorship thoughts on their talk page before they make an unblock request? But generally, I'd welcome any ideas you might have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Boing! said Zebedee and cheers for the message above. I need to think this through with several strong cups of tea and a few roll ups. There is some longstanding crap here, and I'm beginning to gauge just how deep seated it is. I will give you a provisional reply here as to a possible way forward, and will be commenting on A's page as you recommend with some ideas. Will probably ping the parties here as well in a separate section, just to see what the core issues are. It's probably not the best day to do it but I need to see if A can interact with the others without losing it. Irondome (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I think going slowly and carefully is probably the best approach here, and getting something effective in place is far more important than resolving anything quickly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a good start, comes straight back with accusations of synth and nationalist editing. I am very much inclined to go straight back to WP:ANI if this continues. WCM_email 08:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And you can add the problematic edit warring to force content into the article as well. Individuals have to meet notability guidelines to be included, he doesn't listen to people when they try to guide him he looks for loopholes to get his way. WCM_email 08:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs WCM All such accusations must stop from now on. All. Asilah1981 that's another thing, I need updates on all articles you are editing so I don't have to run around like a blue arsed fly. I was under the assumption that you were not editing for 7-8 days as you said on your T/P? Irondome (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Irondome I think there has been a slight misrepresentation of my recent, rather laid back and candid editing on the Talk Page of Gibraltar. An edit war was indeed sparked between WCM and Asqueladd but I was not involved beyond providing some sources on the talk page. I know its easy to assume that where there is smoke there is fire, but have a look at what my involvement in the Gibraltar article has actually been . I would also ask you, as my mentor, to go through WCM´s diffs one more time: Have I really engaged in personal accusations of any kind? Or edit warring? I simply provided a comment on an RfC. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Irondome, new editor adds material, reverted by Asilah1981 without using the talk page, , no attempt to discuss, just revert warred straight back into the article. Combative talk page post with the veiled accusation What could possibly be the reason for wanting him out of the culture section? and after doing that tells me to be civil. TBH if I hadn't been waiting for you to respond I would already have been at ANI.

WCM_email 19:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

WCM you are accusing me of being uncivil for politely suggesting we keep it civil, upon you aggressively accusing a bunch of stuff I don´t even understand? This is all very Kafkian. Again, I beg you to please take it easy. Fighting is a waste of time for both of us. Have a nice day.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Irondome, just something for your attention , I wouldn't care but his own source confirms what I wrote . This is despite promising to avoid the area and to avoid comments that antagonise other editors. I wonder if this is simply a competence issue? WCM_email 12:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

WCM, why do you have to be so hostile and antagonistic towards me? I am being civil and polite to you, apologizing where I make mistakes etc... And your response is to go to my mentor and call me incompetent? How does that help us get along? Just point to the source in the talk page in a respectful manner as would be expected of an experienced editor. I will examine it and thank you for it.

Yes, I see that he used to write in English before he became recognized, but now he doesn´t - at all, in his own words, "I wouldn´t be able to (sic)" (from your own source). The source provided by Asqueladd still presents him as "a pillar of Spanish language Literary creation in Gibraltar" which is a more relevant description than highlighting that once upon a time he wrote in English ]. I can assist you with translation from a number of languages I speak, including Spanish. But please, insulting me does not help. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Fyi I also draw your attention to comments on other controversial issues. WCM_email 15:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Irondome, Boing! said Zebedee, I will stop begging this editor to leave me alone and I will ignore the harassment as per WP:GOAT. I think this is what you would both expect me to do. I refuse to be goaded into being uncivil with him and I am determined to see my mentorship through to successful fruition. I will not comment any further, regardless of what is said from now on. Elie.

I have requested a seven day cessation of Asilah1981's editing from controversial subjects. This is part of the mentoring agreement. I am indeed reading the diffs you are providing Wee Curry Monster Wee. I can see the issues. Elie, you must use talkpages more and be far more rigourous in your detail in using sources. Stop reverting so much. We all have POV's about things. Make WP:NPOV the alpha and the omega of your editing. This will be heavily addressed in your mentoring. Wee, (and others) I get it, but the past is the past and we must stop picking at old sores. I am aware that these behaviours are recent, but so is the mentoring agreement. We need some detente at this stage so I can start to unpick this. This is not an attack on anyone, it is just how I am reading things at this stage. Wee calls things as he sees them. But he is not your enemy. Elie, it is a good sign that you are not trying to get jabs in. Keep that behaviour up. Ok. Simon. Irondome (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Irondome, if he'd stuck with his mentoring agreement and resisted the temptation to poke bears you'd never have heard from me. You know me, I don't bear grudges (no pun intended) but if I see the mentoring agreement breached I'll simply point it out and not comment. WCM_email 20:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Western betrayal page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And back again

Hi Irondome and happy new year, hope you are doing well. I do not know if I am knocking on the right door, but you are inadvertently involved due to your commitment with the case. I will explain myself. The lastest ANI with Asilah1981 comes from the article Basque conflict. The editors involved in the latest discussion, at odds with each other, got some kind of arrangement more than a week ago, and I thought there would be some peace after all. As it happens, just after the incident I was attacked gratuitously in my talk page over another article by a username of pretty new creation, for which I preferred to let the issue go. Just a few days later, a username of new creation came back out of the blue again with an exact claim made by Asilah1981 weeks ago in the above article to mess it up over a very sensitive and painful topic, torture (see Talk:Basque conflict to get a taste).

Sorry, as someone put it in the ANI, this is taking a piss, or as WCM put it right now, poking the bear, making a fool of me, and the whole WP community. I am really fed up, more so if the WP does not tackle this issue decisively. I only see one way out for me now, another incident, for which I have enough evidence to start with. Of course he will come back to his claims that I am recurrently attacking him with new sockpupetting allegations. Very sad, but leaves me little leeway. (He should have been banned.) However, I would like to hear from you first. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iñaki LL. This is very concerning obviously. Have you initiated an SPI? I can only recommend this as it is the only way to be certain. Needless to say, if there is any such activity, I will be uninvolving myself in any further developments. Irondome (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I have not, but I may. I do not hold any grudges, I only see the evidence, I am not blind, and its disruptive effect on my normal activity and the WP altogether, not subsiding. I will consider my options. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, do you have the precise link to where this activity was (is) taking place. I saw evidence of compromise being reached on the usage of the concept of "taboo" in Spanish media reporting. Is it before or after this. Also is it evidenced in other article t/p's? Regards Irondome (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Irondome: The latest evidence is in the link provided above (history, 13-14th January), Basque conflict, the editor goes by the name User:ESeion. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I considered my options, will let it go this time. Some editors may have ample time to dedicate to the WP, but I am not willing to run the gauntlet, not now at least, my agenda is pretty tight at work and need to focus. However, I have little doubt that poking will take place and have no doubt where the source lies. Since the mentoring will start now, I look forward to the strict meeting of the terms in which it was established, I trust you will do it very well. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that good faith confidence Iñaki LL. I trust you have seen the terms on the potential mentorees' talkpage. I believe they are as firm as can be reasonably expected in these circumstances. As far as I am concerned, they are in effect, as I have heard no concrete counterproposals from Asilah1981. In any case, I must say that I doubt A is socking. Elie may have some severe faults in editing style which I hope will be explicitly addressed over the coming months, but I do not think that is one of them. Irondome (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have known him for too long, I know what very well what his challenges and style are, and what is going on. All the same, I trust you in your pursuit, hope this comes to some satisfactory conclusion. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Irondome, hope you are doing well. Sorry to come back, but I had to. After the intervention of two ghostly new usernames in the article Basque conflict backing up Asilah1981's political line, or better, complementing Asilah1981's nationalist rant/OR in the ANI ("Yeah, not just intimidation"), the mentored editor has continued with his OR, this time allegedly quoting from a Spanish newspaper supporting Asilah1981's views, but after I double-checked, not reproducing in the WP article what the daily claims whatsoever. One more time. Now he comes with further "OR"/rambling in his personal page saying that he was never very involved in this project, etc. Another statement as credible as this Credibility? ... Come on, we are grown-ups. The appalling fact is this editor is unable to take responsibility for his actions, and requires someone going through his edits. And now this one-month 'break' thing... Is not this all just gaming the system? Iñaki LL (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Iñaki LL. As I have stated above, if you have suspicions, please raise an SPI. Indeed, the root cause of mentoring is precisely that a colleague has temporarily lost control of the solidity of their editing behaviours, and indeed needs close supervision until behaviours are modified. Actually a one month break is probably wise. It merely means when he returns the mentoring is extending until the 17th April. Three months is three months. I would ask you to WP:AGF, as I am, but my mentoring learning curve has taught me that it is not a suicide pact. One significant breakage of the agreement without a damn good reason will mean the situation is handed over to admin, a few of whom may be reading this. Asilah is very well aware of this. Have you taken into account the possibility that A is indeed aware that this is the last chance saloon and actually is afraid of the possibility of a ban? I am not pissing about here as a mentor. It comes at one of my periodic "difficult times" both on WP and off, so I am not wasting my emotional resources anymore than will prove necessary. Regards, Irondome (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Irondome for your quick reply. Your effort as a mentor is of course appreciated, and you are right, sometimes off and on WP matters pile up, that is why as editors we do not want to get stuck in negative things, like having to double check other editors' unlikely edits and edit summaries, and show concern/respond. I am AGF, but do have a concern for the WP, and inherent, recurrent contradictions/breach of WP policies of the editor are untenable, per evidence, it is a total lack of respect to the Wikipedian community, not for the occurrence of irregularities, but their recurrence.

One month off as Asilah1981 is not my concern, but the completely incosistent behaviour permating his WP activity, who knows what he will come up with next. I suggest you check his latest record to spot bare eye irregular editing, very damaging actually for all of us who still believe in the EN WP (re: bullfighting). Now it is up to you to decide what you do, I trust you are taking good note, and are ready to do something about it, whatever you consider best. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Simon, what is the issue here? I am indeed off wikipedia (meaning maybe one small edit every few days) Btw, when I get back into editing proper, :::::::::::I am going to propose the article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners for deletion.

The reasons are the following:

• The article listing individuals murdered by ETA was deleted some years back. I dont recall the rationale.
• This article is a list of criminals convicted and imprisoned for murder, attempted murder, kidnap or accessory to murder.
• It aims to present them as political prisoners, martyrs and seems to present them as being imprisoned for their political views.
• It is glorification of terrorism and there is no equivalent list of criminal outfits on wikipedia.

This is a "controversial" move I guess, so let me know your thoughts. Elie.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your very timely attempts to keep me in the loop of your editing intentions, as per agreement.This is indeed a controversial move. Again, avoid POV issues in terms of choice of wording. I would require you please not to propose it without a thorough discussion here, and some compromises made in terms of the rationale. Again, I need to check the history of this article. We do not want to provoke a shit-storm. The argument for deletion as it is worded above would have a high probability of creating rancour and drama, and we do not want that. I do not want that. Added to my W/L. Irondome (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2017)

Some of the human organs Hello, Irondome. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Organ (anatomy) Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Professional audio • Aeolian Islands Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot 00:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Misplaced Pages when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Misplaced Pages's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Misplaced Pages

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Misplaced Pages Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Basque Conflict Talk Page

Just to let you know I have made this proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Basque_conflict&diff=761049124&oldid=760868406 on talk page of Basque Conflict. It is a controversial topic so thought i should bring it to your attention as per agreement. No time to get involved in argument but I hope it leads to a solution.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Now on my watchlist. Thanks for the "heads up". We will discuss this more over the coming days. I would suggest you do edit sparingly for now. I need to read up on the topic area. Avoid POV wordings, keep it cerebral and not from the kishkas (not visceral basically). The edits you have made appear to have a constructive outcome as the goal. Good. Irondome (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2017)

Ghanaian nationalists celebrating the 50th anniversary of national independence in 2007 Hello, Irondome. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: African nationalism Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Organ (anatomy) • Professional audio Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot 00:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2017)

Asilah1981

FYI. I presume this wasn't run by you first per your mentoring agreement. WCM_email 10:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Don´t we need to come to consensus before making controversial edits WCM? I thought that was the agreement and standard procedure on this article as per WP policy? Asilah1981 (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

And again FYI. WCM_email 12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WCM_email 13:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI WCM_email 13:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Simon, as per RfC conclusion and closure (which for some odd reason has been reverted for a second time) I have added government and secondary sources to Disputed Status of Gibraltar as recommended by un-involved editors. Do have a look at my edits, they will be reverted no doubt, but let me know if you are ok with them. Best, Elie.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Elie, Disputed Status of Gibraltar is one of the potentially controversial areas which I asked you to inform me about and to discuss proposed edits prior to making them, as per the mentoring agreement. This hasn't happened, and once again I am forced to play catch up, increasing my stress level somewhat. Start following the mentoring agreement as from now, or it will be unilaterally cancelled. We made a deal, and I am not being Trumpish here! I see a discussion has started on the relevant talk page, and both the quality of policy based argument and numbers of commenting editors will determine the consensus there. If you are not going to tell me your proposed edits, then discuss them with your colleagues on the relevant T/P's before you make them. The edit under discussion is extremely charged in terms of wording used. I will comment there but I am extremely busy at this point. Regarding the Bullfighting edits, I think you are straining the Daily Telegraph source somewhat, in terms of what it actually says. I would suggest a trim and reword, to achieve a mid point wording between the original, and the new. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm extremely disappointed, the edits to Disputed Status of Gibraltar are clearly POV and soap boxing the Spanish position. As noted in the RFC what is required are neutral academic opinions not WP:PRIMARY sources. I also don't see a talk page discussion? WCM_email 13:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. My error, was looking at a previous thread without checking timestamp, which was in fact the tail end of the RfC. Asilah1981 please initiate a new discussion, and I suggest you revert to the last version. Make your case for proposed edits there. Another RfC is possibly required if consensus cannot be reached. Again, I would ask you to adhere to our agreement in subsequent edits. Cheers, Irondome (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thats cool, but does this apply to WCM as well or only me. Feels a bit unfair if WCM has a free hand editing and I can only discuss proposed edits on talk page? I added and sourced (primary and secondary) the Spanish position because the section is called "Spanish position", so I don't know what this "soap boxing" argument is about.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Simon, are you honestly agreeing with WCM that a section summarizing the Spanish position is POV because it summarizes the Spanish position? Its a slightly insane argument, I have to say. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I also notice that while I was away the problems and combative behavior with this article have persisted. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:69.165.196.103#Your_RFC_closure_at_Disputed_Status_of_Gibraltar Asilah1981 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I started an RfC. Then will take to arbitration or whatever, since the last RfC remained open for like 2 months or something. ElieAsilah1981 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Irondome, the mentoring agreement clearly isn't working, the revert warring behaviour is back, he's not discussing matters, he's making everything personal and sees everything as a battle to be won. As far as I can see he's continued with the same behaviour on other articles and with the current behaviour he's paralysing any possibility of improving this article. I'm really fed up with this. WCM_email 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

We can wait to see result of the next RfC since the prior one has been forcibly left open ad infinitum even though it has been delisted ages ago. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no requirement that RFCs be formally closed. Kahastok talk 19:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It has to be said that it was reasonable to perhaps expect that Asilah's behaviour would change with mentoring. But in this case Asilah has not even pretended to try to find a consensus on this, he's gone straight for formal dispute resolution. The RFC was opened less than 40 minutes after the first talk page post before anyone else had had a chance to answer. By my reading, in fact, he has broken every single line of your agreement except the first. Kahastok talk 19:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Kahastok/WCM you have been acting in tandem for years and I have been discussing this topic with you for months. Evidently now is the time for dispute resolution, you have made your positions clear on this specific topic since last year and have expressed no desire for compromise. Dispute resolution is the only way forwards. Nothing in my agreement with Irondome forbids me from proposing RfCs or going into dispute resolution. I also think you two are taking an unhealthy interest in my mentorship and (besides a brief clash with Inaki) are the only two wikipedia editors i have ever had issues with. Maybe you should back off your running commentary and constant emailing of Simon regarding myself, no matter how badly you want me permanently blocked.Asilah1981 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal of mentorship

Asilah1981 I must end the mentorship agreement, on the grounds that most of the agreed provisions have not been met by you. You have not given me prior information as to proposed edits, you have not given me advance notice of potentially contentious areas you were planning to edit, and you appear to have slipped into a battleground mentality. I have been forced to keep track of your editing patterns by info provided by Wee Curry Monster, who has been quite honest in openly leaving me alerts as to your editing which I was not getting from you. In addition you are opening RfC's without, it would seem, adequate prior attempts at discussion, and quite specifically without discussing with your mentor. I do believe colleagues above did not wish to get you banned, but with considerable pessimism, agreed with mentoring if you stuck with its conditions and altered your behaviours. This appears not to have happened. I am sorry Elie. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Irondome Hi Simon, understood and I appreciate your efforts so no hard feelings. The chosen mentorship framework was perhaps not adequate for commencing a dispute resolution process I am going for and I did not feel comfortable with it being leveraged as a sword of damocles by these two editors. It would have been used against me. It has nevertheless been a learning experience and has taught me a lot on how to edit wikipedia and deal with certain situations. I will remember your advice and I hope to remain in touch on this project. Lehitraot, Elie.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

One last thing, Simon, to be fully honest with you... I lost faith in this mentorship when WCM came to you to complain about this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ADisputed_status_of_Gibraltar&type=revision&diff=758992068&oldid=758985348 construing it as a personal attack and informing you that he was on the verge of taking me to ANI over this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Gibraltar&diff=next&oldid=759122385. I would have hoped for you to immediately tell him to back off at that point and build some trust. Anyways, you did try and spent time guiding me, so kudos to you! :-)Asilah1981 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee:, @Drmies:, @Kahastok:, @Iñaki LL: Irondome, hope you don't mind me discussing this here, as really the only other option would be WP:ANI. After being unblocked on 7/1 Asilah promised to "to tone it down and be less confrontational generally", he promised to seek mentorship, he promised to abide by a mentorship agreement. All of those promises have been broken and then we have this . I don't see how any reasonable discussion can be had with this editor when he approaches any and all discussions in this manner. I mean above, he's basically saying he didn't trust his mentor. Personally I'm tired of the time sink dealing with this editor has become. WCM_email 13:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I asked him after that not to post on my talk page. He has done, posting further abuse in the process . Kahastok talk 18:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Simon, you still believe these two editors are not determined to get me permanently blocked? I'm pretty proud of myself I have managed to stay civil and polite and not respond to a single personal attacks, though. Misplaced Pages has really taught me to stay cool and not to respond to aggression with aggression. You have really helped in that regards, thanks again. :-) Elie. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Bad start, bad follow-up, the editor in question said in early January he had decided he would wiki off for a month and no wonder, petty as the detail may be, tellingly he did not honour his word. He intervened in the Basque conflict article again to push his views, showing a mild language in the edit summary and talk page. The statement meddled with is verified and, no surprise, the reference (a Spanish daily attacking the wikipedia article and with a clearly partisan line on the issue) says even nothing on Asilah1981's claim. And then grievance started in talk page... Also, removal of verified content in another article (check edit summary) The editor shows a complete inability to take responsibility for his own actions, least of all honour his word, the summary lines are anything but trustworthy. Other than that, he asked Irondome to remove the Basque MLNV prisoners article altogether (see above). That is his kind of contribution. Credibility... 0; collaboration... 0. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I would request you to carefully read all of the diffs which are being presented here as evidence of my alleged misbehavior. I hope there is a policy to protect wikipedians against such concerted action. Asilah1981 (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have too many things to attend to right now to take this on as well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kahastok:@Drmies:@Wee Curry Monster: To whom it may concern, the agreement, an alternative, constructive sanction to an indefinite block, has been breached. The only consistent option out is an indefinite block of Asilah1981 per the last Incident I bring back here , permanent litigation, continuous irregular editing. As suggested by EdJohnston opening a new Incident applies, although I do not know why we should be chastised again with further time wasting to be honest, all attempts to rein in the editor's erratic behaviour have failed, and I should request executive action, it is a recurrent, clear case. Although I know she may be pretty tied up off wiki, I should also ping Iryna Harpy in the hope that she can show up, since she was involved. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

A HUGE backlog

We now have 822 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2017)

A high school in Malaysia Hello, Irondome. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Secondary school Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Nvidia Shadowplay • African nationalism Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot 00:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Misplaced Pages's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Misplaced Pages at its 16th birthday celebration

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)