Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive942

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


 * Well, answer my concerns at Talk:Party of the Danes instead of ignoring me and reverting my rewriting. I try to be constructive at least. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And no, false accusations of vandalism don't count as an appropriate answer. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dnm, firstly, removing sources is not vandalism. It mostly falls under disruptive editing. Please read what is and what is not vandalism at WP:Vandalism. Regarding the IP, I am not sure I quite understand your second message, but if a vandal is edit warring (not you in this case), a user is more than allowed to use that excuse to revert them and report them if necessary. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  23:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I will read it. I am not used to English Wikipedia and its choice of words. Dnm (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is that I've raised my concerns about the sourcing of the article on the talk, but Dmn (and Adville) respond to my critique with ad hominem and it seems no consensus can be reached. When I try to rewrite the article into NPOV, it just gets reverted with no explanation other than "vandalism" from Dnm. It's getting annoying. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I just semiprotected the article for a month for persistent disruptive editing (tendentious removal of sourced and relevant content), and only afterwards did I notice this ANI report. Anyway, my action still seems appropriate, unless another admin has a better idea. Thank you for your report, Dnm. For another time, the best place to ask for protection is WP:RFPP. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC).


 * Disruptive editing? Please take a look at my NPOV version compared to now, and consider my concerns raised at  which I have not received a response for, before labelling it as "disruptive". --80.63.3.167 (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Political parties and other organizations don't get to simply self-describe, Wikipedia is also supposed to tell the reader what reliable sources say about their ideology. You have repeatedly removed every trace of that in the lead and body of the article and in the infobox, relegating it to a separate "Allegations of Nazism" section. That's not how NPOV works. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Read my comment and the discussion at talk again. The article is POV, there has been a huge discussion about these "Nazism" claims on da.wiki, and the outcome was to collect such allegations in a separate section. It is NOT OKAY to spam the article with an WP:UNDUE amount of Swedish MSM for a Danish party with irrelevant links and WP:POVPUSHING agencies like expo.se and present it as "Many experts and analysts" when it is obviously a fringe view not even acknowledged in Danish MSM about a Danish political party. Expo.se is NOT RS, as I have explained 1000 times in the talk and omni.se + Aftonbladet do NOT explicitly state that PofD is Nazi, so how on earth can you accept this when these issues are unsolved? What a disgrace and such a superficial way of managing this dispute. When you're dealing with the sole claims from 1 single Swedish MSM (minus expo.se, which is not RS) and 1 researcher at a left-leaning university, it's absolutely not okay present this as a mainstream view, then it is just biased accusations, and should be dealt with so as accusations in a separate section, and in the lead you could write something in the line of "The party has been accused of X by Y." --80.63.3.167 (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked who edit-warred over much the same thing in much the same terms (i.e., complaints about "Swedish MSM" and Swedish editors) after the article was semi-protected.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed Contraventum's talkpage access after abuse, Acroterion. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC).

IP block for IPV6 range by Cox Communications out of Buckeye, Arizona
Editor has been asked several times to be civil on Talk:Canada and is now making personal attacks at me. There's no way to address anon other than by the city in which the editor's IP is located and the editor seems to have decided to out me, and my location. I can't warn anon because of IP hopping. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Walter Görlitz, the IP isn't hopping on purpose, their ISP does that. The whole /16 range can be blocked if required, as it's all one person and carries no risk of collateral damage. But I'd need some examples of the personal attacks before considering such a rangeblock. I'm having trouble finding any attacks — they may be there, but there are a lot of edits from the range on the talkpage, and all I see at a quick look is basically discussion. And what about the outing you mention? Bishonen &#124; talk 17:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
 * More: PS, I understand it's difficult to warn them, but you certainly missed an opportunity when they came to your page and you simply removed them. They're probably keeping an eye on your page, so it would make sense to a) put back their post, and b) respond to it with a warning and a specific mention of this ANI discussion. Just a thought. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
 * I understand how IPV6 works. Each time you sign on, you get a new IP. However, I would like a block. I placed a warning on the Canada talk page expressing the facts. I also asked for proof and the editor, who has no proof, called me a troll for requesting proof. A block please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not a blocking matter in my book, Walter Görlitz. And you gave as good as you got, indeed your response was more personal than the IP's post. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Understood. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Trolling by 216.15.70.128
I'm bringing this over from WP:AIAV as I guess trolls are allegedly not considered vandals and the administrator who rejected the report refuses to discuss this there even though plenty of short discussions take place there all the time when an administrator rejects a report. Anyway, I was originally not even involved with this IP, but after, a user who's on my watch list, requested the IP to leave his talk page alone, the IP ignored his request and posted on his talk page again. Alex reverted the IP, to which the IP responded by reverting Alex. I then reverted the IP and the IP began stalking me at 100 Things to Do Before High School and raised basically a bogus discussion on the talk page of that article just to cause trouble and then posted on my talk page accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Alex. This is honestly behavior that shouldn't be tolerated and should be a blockable offense. The IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE. also reverted an edit of theirs on Alex's talk page, though I don't know if they ended up getting stalked as well. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 07:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Repeating copyvios
User:Cornellcam is repeatedly creating a promotional article for Board of Student Advisers, most recently at Board of student advisers. These is largely copyvios and have been deleted 3 times at the original location as A7, G11 and G12. Xe has now reposted at a new location and this version is like the others and is largely copied and closely paraphrased from here Duplication Detector. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've deleted and salted "Board of student advisers". ("Board of Student Advisers" was already deleted and salted.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That would explain why the creation has occurred across multiple titles. Thanks! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to have helped. If the material pops up under yet another title, don't hesitate to point this out. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Range block for disruptive LTA
There's an LTA who edit wars to add unsourced content, blank citations, change wording to be incorrect, and is generally disruptive. You can read about it in this LTA report. On 5 July 2016, 2a02:c7d:9ec5:3800::/64 was range blocked by Krakatoa Katie for 45 days. The range has become active again recently, and the edits are still disruptive: Individually, many of these problems are not major, but whenever anyone tries to fix any of these issues, he edit wars indefinitely to maintain them. You can see some of his edit warring in Vampire in Brooklyn, Eddie Murphy Raw, 12 Rounds 2: Reloaded, and Absolutely Anything. Some of these have since been semi-protected because of him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:J-lorentz
User:J-lorentz (contributions) editings in Indonesia article is disruptive and thinks he/she owns the article. Ownership of content. He/she also always uploads images that he/she don't own, without photographer's permission, from Google Images, mirrored, or cropped the watermark of the photograph's owner, and creating fake Metadata. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/J-lorentz). He/she applies "his/her" photographs to many articles. Most of his images has been reported and speedy deleted, and leaving Indonesia article and other articles broken and missing images. Administrators, please take an action for this disruptive user. Rantemario (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours; I couldn't delete the Commons images because someone else got to them first. Please re-report if the user resumes disruption.  Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , I don't see any blocks in the block log. Was the editor blocked or not? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Somehow I forgot that one little detail!  Now remedied, and thank you for catching my mistake.  Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Motbag12 edit warring, called editors white trash and vandals
Moving this from WP:EW as there was no 3RR notice:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 756848092 by Joshua Jonathan (talk)You are simply a white trash European who hates India. You cant deal with India and China becoming great powers, is it?  Sources give"
 * 2)  "VANDALISM REVERTED. There is no such Wikipedia or encyclopedia rules and regulations such like that. As long as legitimate sources are provided, those sources can be listed for verification only."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 756753478 by RegentsPark (talk) VANDALISM REVERTED; Lead Expanded - economic projections"

Also while logged out, calling other editors  vandals and white trash, etc. I see little hope for this editor and iif I hadn't reverted them would have taken action myself. He's been warned several times and another editor removed a personal attack I haven't read from the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 06:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No 3rr warning though but this is still beyond acceptable. Doug Weller  talk 06:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 06:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Misread one of the warnings, as it said 'has been removed' I thought it meant a talk page comment, but it must have referred to an edit summary, although of course that hasn't been removed. Doug Weller  talk 06:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm losing track of the reverts, another with his account and two more with an IP address, with an edit summary about "white Americans". So that's 2 after the warning. Doug Weller  talk 08:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually that makes 3 total after the warning. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Awarded a 31-hour cooling-off period. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Evading block as an IP. Before the block he seems to have used another IP. which User:Materialscientist blocked. Doug Weller  talk 22:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Busily evading the block with different IPs. (Perhaps his own block should be lengthened accordingly.) I've regretfully s-protected Talk:India and Talk:Indian Century. -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say an extension by 72 hours per block evasion offence would be alarmingly easy to justify. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd have no trouble justifying it myself, Twitbookspacetube. But I would say that, wouldn't I? After all, he [I always think of these people as male] has put me among "white illiterate administrators of free encyclopedia", a diagnosis that must surely upset me so profoundly (not) as to render me incapable of dispassionate thought. Better that an alternative admin takes any additional action. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose WP:INVOLVED is rather important Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Swami Nithyananda

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

In response to my addition of a template, User:Shashaanktulsyan decides to reply with a legal threat (see previous edit as well). The article seems have a history of BLP violations (both against the subject and others). However, it also has a history of dubious editors popping up and trying to puff up the article (using unreliable sources)/WP:BLUDGEONing discussions and !vote stacking. All of this is disruptive and I hope others can look into it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a legal threat. When fans and supporters edits like a paid editor and COI editors, the good faith wikipedians face problems. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * & &   "Good faith" is ok, but purposely repeating the same thing again and again and again and again for 2 years means what? Surely there is something wrong here. This topic has been debated and discussed over for a period of 1.5 years. The dubious content was removed after almost 1 year of debate. And then again Ms. Lemongirl942 tried to bring it up again as a separate wiki article. Then again the second debate on the exact same topic happened. You can see the discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nityananda_sex_scandal  . There is overwhelming vote for the content to be removed. Yet I don't understand why is it comming back to wikipedia again and again and again. And Lemongirl942 very well followed the discussion end to end because she only had raised it. Even if she has a different subjective-view-point  (which is fine) she very well knows that is has been discussed for almost 1.5 years and yet she is telling, "I think this is NPOV, I would prefer retaining it". Please explain how she has the right to override the vote of whoever voted it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nityananda_sex_scandal ? If this is the case what is the point of going through all this. And I get a message, ' "f you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution." '  What do we mean by follow the proper channels? What has been happening since past 1.5 years. Let us talk straight forward. So does it this is going to go on perpetually? And the same issue will be proped up by any random editor and continuously WP:BLP violations will be done. If that is the case, please make it clear. Why this hypocrisy? As if everyone is jobless. I don't understand what benefit people gain by writing abusive content in biography of a living person. Seriously. And also note in the voting I voted for the content to be retained, but still it was removed for WP:BLP. The problem is not that the content is there. I want it to be there. The problem is, only those versions of it is being retained which just give half the picture and have been removed for this reason by various editors for past over 1.5 years. And I don't know what is so hard for some editors to read the previous discussion and follow this. I very well said, let us have the full content and I fully agree with Lemongirl942 that all that should be there along with other facts also. But the discussion which lastest 4 months concluded that it should be removed. So on what basis is this being brought back again and again and again and again and again. When will it end?   Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How about you make a statement that either retracts or clarifies that what you posted is not a legal threat? Because you WILL be banned for it. --Tarage (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how long the discussion has been ongoing and the direction it has taken, it is simply not considered acceptable to post a statement such as Also note, ideally wikipedia should completely remove this page if editors have decided to become accomplice with abusers, otherwise legal proceedings will have to taken against wikipedia to try and influence the outcome of any discussion or to discourage other editors from freely participating in it for the reasons given in WP:LEGAL. If you have a COI and have concerns with the article content, then please follow the steps listed in WP:PSCOI. If you're not able to reach a consensus on the article's talk page, then try asking for assistance at a community noticeboard like WP:BLPN, WP:COIN, WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. Continuing to engage in discussion to try and resolve things may take time, but it's your best chance at a resolution. Continuing to make legal threats, on the other hand, will quickly lead to your account being blocked by an administrator and thereby completely remove you from the process. If your issues are with external media outlets and their coverage or lack of coverage of this matter, then you should discuss the issue with them and not try and use Wikipedia as a place to right some great wrong. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A pretty blatant legal threat. The user must be indef'd at least until (or if) they recant and disavow that threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Reported user has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. The user was given plenty of time to acknowledge Wikipedia's policy on legal threats and redact or withdraw the threat in question, and failed to do so.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Recommend also adding a longish semi. The article has a looooong history of fairly egregious BLP violations. (Ping as most recent protector.) I really don't know who this guys is, and I think...came across the article from RC feed, but apparently he's...like...the Indian love child of Jerry Falwell and Kim Kardashian.  Timothy Joseph Wood  14:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Requesting topic ban for User:Jennepicfoundation

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

The named user is a disclosed COI editor. She is the Director of Communications for the Epic Foundation, whose founder and CEO is Alexandre Mars. She is a single purpose account who created and has worked exclusively on the article Alexandre Mars. (She previously used two alternate accounts, User:Andamanes and User:Jennchowdhury, which are currently blocked at her request.) User:Ritchie333 and I assisted her with creation of the article in May through July of last year, and it was accepted July 9, 2015. We and others counseled her about her conflict of interest and told her she should suggest edits at the talk page, but she persisted in doing direct edits to the article. On July 13 I gave her a strong warning. She made a few innocuous edits, then the article was quiet and stable for a year and a half. On December 15 of this year, she pasted a mostly-new biography into the article. The new material, which she described as "Epic Foundation-approved", was very promotional. She described her employer as "the French Bill Gates" and used language like "made a fortune", "the world's largest mobile agency", and "he is an avid runner and sports fanatic". She was warned that the article was a copyvio because it is duplicated in multiple other places, but she replied that the bio was created by the Epic Foundation and given to the other places where it is published, so she didn't regard it as a copyvio. (Of course, by our rules the fact that it had been published elsewhere meant that it was.) The situation has been discussed at her talk page, the article talk page , and most recently the COI noticeboard. She appears to have no understanding of the problem or how inappropriate this recent addition was, and she clearly intends to keep doing this kind of thing. Although she has been told, repeatedly, not to edit the article herself, she insists that she can and will add anything she wants as long as it is sourced and (in her opinion) neutral. I don't think further counseling is going to help. I am recommending an indefinite topic ban, for User:Jennepicfoundation and any alternate accounts, from any editing having to do with Alexandre Mars or the Epic Foundation. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since she's never edited anything but the Mars article, and she is an obvious SPA with a self-admitted COI, a topic ban would be the equivalent of a block, so why not simply indef block her until she agrees to not edit the article directly, but to make suggestions on the talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Hard block indefinitely. Her statements at the talk page are the equivalent of giving us the middle finger. John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with JFI. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer a TBAN as more appropriate to the offense. There are things you get blocked for; there are things you get topic banned for; they are not the same things. But that's what discussion is for. I would just request that this discussion remain open until at least the 27th, so that she can have a chance to respond. (Chances are she does her posting from work, and she probably has Sunday and Monday off.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support pageban (allowing input on Talk) and block if it's not honoured. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just an indef block, with talk page access. Why do we go through all these hoops to preserve the 1/1,000,000 chance that someone like this will ever be a productive editor?  E Eng  06:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Page ban Not many hoops to go through. If they edit the page then they get blocked, if they stop editing altogether then it is effectively the same as an indef. If they start editing at the talk page (however unlikely this is seen to be) then we have the desired result. Jumping straight to indef seems a bit harsh. AIR corn (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll bet you three AfDs, a GA, and ten DYKs it doesn't work. Deal?  E Eng  08:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your money is safe, but at least this way we're seen to be fair. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Page ban with talk access - if she doesn't get the message, indef. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: If Jennifer acting as agent for the Epic Foundation has pasted EF copyright text into Wikipedia in full awareness of the T's and C's, then it has been released under the appropriate license.  "Our rules" may of course demand an OTRS release in addition, or they may not.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC).


 * Support page ban with talk access. User:EEng,  Hope costs nothing.  Tide  rolls  13:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ...nothing but yet another ANI thread. But hey, we got a zillion of them anyway, so what's one more?  E Eng  18:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Page ban with talk access Agree Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Just so resolution of this is not held up because of an apparent division between editors as to what to do, let me be clear that if the consensus is for a page ban, I'm OK with that as well. I agree with waiting until the 27th for a close, seems only fair. (Unless she edits the article before then.)  Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I also support a page ban. Good idea, because it leaves her able to suggest edits on the talk page. The ban should make it clear that if she edits on the article page, AT ALL, that will be an immediate block. No need for a return to ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the user hasn't yet figured out that direct editing of the article is improper, I don't think she ever will. However, I support MelanieN's idea of giving a little more WP:ROPE – she can suggest edits on the talk page, but any direct editing of the article will lead to an immediate indefinite block. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I too would accept a page ban with talk page access for the sake of a solid concensus only. However, I'm in the same camp as EEng. Hope does not spring eternal here for me. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * JfI, I'm going to have to ask you to leave my camp if you don't stop eating collaborative communities . Fair warning.  E Eng  04:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Complication: the user has been blocked as a username violation, so she currently cannot respond here even if she wants to. I have posted a note to the blocking administrator (I don't think the name is a violation), but in the meantime please don't close this discussion; I'd really like her to have a chance to respond rather than getting blindsided over a holiday weekend. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Never mind, she's been unblocked. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Inappropriate section at Talk:Generation Snowflake
Talk:Generation Snowflake should probably be removed, closed, or hatted, along with leaving a note on the talk page of the contributor who opened it stating that such a thing is inappropriate on the talk page of an article. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 09:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've hatted it, even though I'm not an admin, because I found it inappropriate - "ban someone or I'll stop donating" is a bit childish really. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At the very least, someone would need to prove they actually are donating. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, they wouldn't, because it would be utterly irrelevant to any on-wiki dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So instead he would need to take it up with the Foundation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's relevant at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with Boing! said Zebedee. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree in general. But it's not automatically irrelevant. It might be relevant to the Foundation, IF the user isn't bluffing and is a significant donor. Not that that's license to attack other editors - it's akin to a legal threat. But the WMF might be interested in looking into it. You always have to be careful where money comes into play. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that my donations are meaningless in the disagreement. The actions on that page definitely make me want to distance myself from Wikipedia, mostly because it seems gang-like and it is increasingly clear that wikipedia is about popularity. Don't worry about my donations. Thanks for at least taking me seriously. 63.227.22.211 (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to quit editing, we can't stop you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the idea that someone would attempt to use donations (that may or may not have actually happened) as a method to exert editorial control or leverage extremely distasteful. Why not go and edit another article instead of making this toothless attempt at blackmail? Exemplo347 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User has already been blocked for edit warring and is clearly very pissed off at the direction the article is taking (he's not the only one). Don't see any reason to keep this open. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Article ownership and personal attacks
Hello! Please, do something with this user. . Corvus tristis (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The "or else" is an implied threat, and cannot be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have notified the user of this discussion. Please remember to do this yourself the next time you file a request at AN or ANI. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  19:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The name-calling (which I won't repeat here, it's in the link) is probably at least as bad as the "or else". Neutron (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Corvus tristis. That looks pretty clear cut to me. Everybody needs to keep calm and discuss differences in a civil manner which clearly did not happen here. I have dropped a warning on their talk page. If you have anymore problems of that sort drop me a line on my talk page and I will deal with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to leave this open for a bit in case Jvm21 wants to respond, but I don't see much more to be added to this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Jvm21 was previously blocked in September by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus for adding unsourced statements to articles. (An example is described at User talk:Jvm21). We should consider taking some admin action this time around if the user will not back off from these threats and personal attacks ("you cybernetic al-Qaeda wannabe. Nobody hijacks my pages and gets away with it").  EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikiwatcher99


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


 * notified here

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


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)


 * Blocked 10 days to allow the AfD to complete. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

User: Nivashkumaryadav
abuse of talk page while blocked WNYY98 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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


 * Seems the user has chosen to retire. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Matthewparadoa


Continued addition of unsourced material to BLP after final warning.


 * Final warning:
 * Continued addition of unsourced material:

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


 * Seems the user is likely a sock of User:Mattmeine, given their similar behavior. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ...who is a banned sock of User:CensoredScribe. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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


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

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

 * The IP is range blocked but is making disruptive edits to their talk page, User talk:2607:FB90:5E96:F5B0:0:49:A34D:B501, transcluding pages so causing errors and adding it to project categories (warning – it will take time to load). Can talk page access can be revoked for a range block? I would say protect the page but they can just return to another one.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk page access revoked for the range. Katietalk 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

I asked him to withdraw the statement []

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

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

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

I think the user is clearly to involved in the topic to be a constructive editor.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note there is a difference between "to" and "too", "border" and "boarder" and "what" and "was". &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would like to address the actual points made is is not a breech of policy?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * breach. I didn't do anything wrong. You can call me a potato because I am a potato. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As you can see he is making no effort to actually explain how his actions are within policy, and is a tendentious editor (at best). I will bow out for a bit and let other editors take over.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ehm, I actually did explain why that action is allowed: "You can call me a potato because I am a potato". On my talkpage I wrote: "Saying an extremist is an extremist is not an insult. They are usually quite proud of it, and they dislike those who have a more moderate opinion. I would ask you to check their contribs before falsely accusing me of insulting anyone." &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Quixotic Potato - I disagree. Your response here appears to violate Wikipedia's policy by making personal attacks at, and clearly so. You tell him that he "hold[s] far far more bigoted views than the average muslim" and doesn't realize it, imply that his views are being controlled by others by stating that you hope he can "escape from those who are in control of your worldview", and ending with "islamophobia and antisemitism are two sides of the same foul-smelling coin" and "Extremists like Motsebboh are not your friend". This is absolutely not a constructive comment that exists to provide direct input in discussion to the request for comment taking place on the article's talk page. Per Wikipedia's policy on civility, you're expected to keep discussions toward content, and not toward other users. Please do not make further uncivil responses or engage in making personal attacks toward other editors. This violates Wikipedia's policies on how to interact and collaborate (which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please specify which part you mean. Have you checked their contributions before falsely accusing me? Everyone's worldview is controlled by others, but people have to decide who to trust. You act way too quickly; please do some research before posting a comment. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm failing to understand what "part" of my response needs to be specified or explained further to you. The user's contributions are completely irrelevant. To put things in context: responded to a vote comment citing a document (that may or may not be found to be relevant to the discussion) as part of his reasons behind his thoughts. Another editor responded believing such document to be unrelated to the discussion,  responds with additional comments regarding the document, then you respond to him with this. I'm not suggesting that your response violated Wikipedia's policies on civility and making personal attacks - I'm telling you that it did. This response was unacceptable. Period. If further personal attacks such as this continue, you may be blocked from editing.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   13:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wanna make it through RfA, and handle cases like this, you have to do a lot of reading before you start writing. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah lol you did. Well, rnddude is giving a good example. Slow down. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your response here at all. Reading below, even if you did provide diffs to assert your thoughts regarding 's contributions... how does that make your response acceptable, or a positive contribution to the discussion at-hand regarding the article? How is this response positively aiming to help the discussion come to a consensus? I made an in-depth thought and response here on my talk page. I believe that it clearly explains this situation and the issue at-large.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talkpage. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Without getting into the meat of the argument, Quixotic; you hold far far more bigoted views than the average muslim is pretty clearly an a comment about the contributor and not the content. Hypothetically if you were calling a spade a spade it might be overlooked. The fact is, you weren't. It is quite clear that David A is "passionate" about the issue of Islamic doctine and Islamic extremism, as I am assuming you are about Islamophobia. There is no need to go to such a low level to further your arguments. If you can't posit your case without commenting on others then either your argument is weak or you're not bothering to put up a strong one. RfCs are decided by the weight of the arguments, not the insults. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, check his contribs. I know it is a comment about the contributor, but it is based on their contributions. And as you can see I didn't really bother with that RfC, that is correct. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs Quix, you must provide diffs. You've been brought to AN/I for your actions, if you have any intent of defending your extremism comment you will have to provide evidence that the editor has espoused extremist, bigoted, or otherwise unseemly views that impact on the encyclopaedia. That would make your comment defensible. As it currently stands, you've called an editor bigoted and provided no evidence of such. I don't know where in their contribs to look. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the thread started about another comment, but if you want me to give you some diffs for that one then I will have to do some research. I haven't saved the links I dug up, maybe I should've. There are quite a few examples that illustrate what I mean. Most muslims do not spend a large amount of time trying to post negative information about groups they dislike on Wikipedia. Women, children and the elderly are the majority... &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would at least give me some context to work off of. Though I may not necessarily draw the same conclusions as you do. The PewResearchCentre's study doesn't give any great confidence to Islamic doctrine and Muslim groups who subscribe to it wholly, much like with many other religions. If David has an issue with Muslims then I will have a chat to them about it on their talk page. Many criticisors of Islam forget the distinction between the faith and the person. I once heard it said that your faith is a product of circumstances beyond your control. If you were born in a Hindu family, you'd be a Hindu, a Buddhist family, a Buddhist, a Nordic family in the viking era, Thor, in Ancient Rome, Mars, or in Ancient Egypt, Amun-Ra and Kek. Etc, etc. Attacking the people for their faith is an issue worth addressing, the faith itself is not immune to criticism, nor should it ever be. Think of non-Catholics during the Medieval era for example. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a "strong" atheist (or, more precisely, I am a ignostic theological non-cognivist). My parents used to be vaguely christian, I was baptised and we went to church when I was very little, but all three of their kids are atheists, and later they also stopped believing. My opinion about (for example) ISIL is pretty clear. Muslim extremists would kill me if they would get the chance (you can read my userpage, it explains my POV). I believe that all Abrahamic religions are very very similar, and they are all incorrect. Just a bunch of made up stories from people who tried their best to explain natural phenomena. Most of it is basically a revamped version of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I am Dutch, so I also do not like nazis. Here in Amsterdam there are many muslims, and unfortunately my country also contains quite a few islamophobes. It is sad that they do not seem to realize that antisemitism and islamophobia are two sides of the same foul-smelling coin. Heck, islamophobes and nazis use the same propaganda techniques. I'll get back to you with some diffs, but that will take a while. The quote you posted below (the one I responded to) is an example, because the context is that we were talking about people that the SPLC listed as anti-muslim extremists. Like I said before "women, children and the elderly are the majority", most of them just wanna live in peace and accusing them of possessing "enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism" is of course a very very extreme point of view that isn't shared by many people outside of the alt-right and far-right. The SPLC also dislikes both antisemites and islamophobes, I think my opinion is quite similar to that of the SPLC. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk)  14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have heard of Majiid Nawaz but I can't remember where. Unless I am grossly mistaken, he is particularly critical of Islam, but, I don't recall him being anti-Muslim just severely anti-Islam. I'll get back to you on that if I can find where it was I'd heard of him. I'm happy to wait a day or two for you to find what you're looking for as needed. The quote you're referring to was, I think, a poor choice of expression. I do not believe that David had women and children in mind when he said that, but rather the (male) Muslims in the Middle-East and Africa who do - in some areas significantly - hold views that are not in-line with ours. Female circumsion, the death penalty for adultery, etc. But, I'll let you take the time to find the diffs before I exonerate or prosecute anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On that very same talkpage David wrote that the SPLC is "systematically targetting anybody who rationally criticises radical Islamism". If you look at the people on the list then most of them are clearly extremists, e.g. Horowitz said "the American left, whose agendas are definitely to destroy this country", Daniel Pipes is the source of the much-ridiculed claim that there are hundreds of “no-go zones” in Europe where Shariah law prevails and where non-Muslims, including police, are afraid to go, Walid Shoebat believes that all Muslim organizations in America should be the No. 1 enemy et cetera et cetera. I don't think I have to explain that those views are far more extreme than those of most muslims (especially the ones I meet here in Amsterdam). Majiid Nawaz was the only one I didn't know much about  &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk)  15:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Gentle reminder that the aim of Islamic State terrorism in Europe is specifically to turn European societies against Muslims. So if you're exploiting the Brussels attacks to push your Islamophobic, anti-immigration agenda you are nothing but a useful idiot in the service of ISIS.

Topic ban.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * lol. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your statement that is more biggoted than your average Muslim. Are you implying that all Muslims are bigoted and that David A is just more of a bigot than the rest of the Muslim population? Either way this sort of comment makes it seem that you bias against Muslims (extremist or otherwise) would be sound cause for a Topic-Ban on the subject. Amortias (T)(C) 13:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ????? Please read before commenting. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments like these should get people topic banned from WP:ANI discussions. Anyway, this is boring, I am gonna do something a bit more productive. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Amortias you have missed the mark by about a quarter-mile. Quix is clearly calling another editor extremist for referring to the average Muslim as extremist. Or rather they appear to perceive it as such, I disagree with their conclusion but am waiting for diffs. Your jumping in to tell Quix that they are biased against Muslims is unwelcome and unproductive. Please expend more effort into going through the content of the issue before posting your comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The diff here specifically states It is sad that you do not realize that you hold far far more bigoted views than the average muslim I'm not sure how stating that someone else has far more bigoted views than a group of people can be considered appropriate without anything to back it up. If its poor wording and they meant to say unlike other/the majority/some Muslims you have bigoted views on... then its simply a case of wording being flakey, calling someone extremist or biggoted without evidence is still not helpful. Amortias (T)(C) 13:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , read the comment to which Quix is responding to; the average Muslim possesses enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism. Context, always important to have context. I by no means defend either comment, neither is of any use to the situation and in that respect I agree with you, but, I still find it not useful to claim someone is biased against a group without a more thorough examination then what is on the face of their words. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All of which is largely irrelevant, as the question is did The Quixotic Potato break policy, and is he a disruptive editor.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Change to total ban, I think it is obvious the user has a contemptuous attitude towards both the five pillars and users who disagree with him.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * lol. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Case to point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * in. And I would treat you differently if you would treat me differently. That is how life on this planet works. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment generally you would be hard pressed to get more than a warning to be less aggressive passed against editor A for calling editor B a bigot straight after editor B makes a bigoted statement. People might quibble that it should have been phrased 'your editing/opinion' rather than 'you'. But its basically semantics in order to comply with wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if someone would ask me use different wording next time in order to be less blunt then I would. But Dutch people are infamous for being blunt, and we are often perceived as being very rude when we believe we are simply being honest. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, could you next time not call someone a bigot just because you think they are and try and word it so it is not an insult.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, seems like a reasonable request to me. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved editor, I started reading this thread and came to the opinion that it should be closed with no action after the first few comments. But the more I read (specifically, of your responses) the more I think some sanctions might be in order, if only to impress upon you the need to work with others here, instead of simply working alongside them. Your insistence upon offering corrections to Slater's comments strikes me as incredibly arrogant and dismissive. Your refusal to provide diffs after being asked by two different admins strikes me as evasive. Your opening of the ANI thread below strikes me as disrespectful to everyone else.
 * I'm not 'piling on', and I'm not suggesting specific sanctions. My preference is still to see this resolved without sanctions, because in many ways I agree with you. What I'm doing here is simply letting you know what sort of negative effect your responses here are having on someone who approached this thread with a bias in your favor. I'm also advising you to get some diffs and use them to defend yourself, or else apologize and strike the comment. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I am a complicated person, you might wanna get to know me more before you judge me. But, like I explained before, "if someone would ask me use different wording next time in order to be less blunt then I would" (update: someone has, and I did, see above). I have noticed that it is quite difficult to be as diplomatic as I want to be in a foreign language. Not just in English, I have the same problem in other languages. I have a very large vocabulary in Dutch, and using a foreign language limits the ways in which I can express myself. I mentioned two diffs (1 and 2), but I can find many more if you want me to. I am very very arrogant, I won't deny that, but if you read my userpage then you'll discover that there is also another side to that story. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ...you might wanna get to know me more... You see, that's the point. I don't know you very well, and because we're just two Wikipedians from two different countries, I'm not likely to ever get to know you well. From my point of view (and that of everyone else here), there's absolutely no difference between you behaving arrogantly, disrespectfully and dismissively, and you appearing to behave arrogantly, disrespectfully and dismissively due to some language difficulties. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you are invited for a cup of tea with a stroopwafel, here in Amsterdam. I wrote: "And I would treat you differently if you would treat me differently." then Slatersteven posted a comment that was constructive and I responded with "OK, seems like a reasonable request to me". Respect is overrated, love is far more important. I usually treat those who treat me respectfully quite nicely (if I may say so myself), but I am known to annoy those who treat me in a way I dislike with perceived arrogance and dismissiveness. BTW I am here to fix typos, I strongly dislike typos and I've fixed many thousands of them. Some quotes from my userpage: "This user suffers from Bloaty Head". "This user is aware of the fact that he is a hypocrite". "This user knows that he knows nothing". "I hate my fellow-man because I'm hateful to myself!". So yeah, on the one hand I can be an arrogant prick if I want to, and I enjoy that if I think that it is well deserved, but I am not one-dimensional. And most people treat me far better so I return the favor. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Slatersteven
Slatersteven has falsely accused me (which I don't really mind), but then he insulted me by writing that I am "a tendentious editor (at best)". That is a clear personal attack (of course this is slightly sarcastic, calling someone a tendentious editor is kinda comparable to calling someone an extremist). &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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


 * Please read WP:INDENT and Straw man argument. I said I don't really mind your false accusation. The subject of this section is your personal attack. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And not a serious accusation, just taking the piss (by his own admission, he is just using this ANI to mock me) [].Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked you politely to read Straw man argument but here you are misrepresenting what I wrote again. I wrote: "if you act like that you will get mocked. That is life." &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Whether that is a coincidence or not, I think the best course of action is to reinstate the block of this IP. His is a single-purpose account, and the purpose is to be disruptive and push his point of view against consensus. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably a coincidence. Their edits don't overlap, but the IP is from a main British ISP, whereas Rococo1700, judging by their editing times, is in the USA. Feel free to start an SPI page if you think they're the same, though. Incidentally, the IP was previously blocked for being a sock of a completely unrelated banned editor, although whether they actually were is another issue. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about the unrelated bit. The banned editor in question is known to take great interest in calendar-related articles. Favonian (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my point, really; the banned editor in question is certainly not known for spending 95% of their time on Italian art-related articles, as Rococo1700 does. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting me straight. :) Thus encouraged, I have renewed the IP's block for ban-evasion. Favonian (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am happy to have been wrong about Rococo1700, and also with the solution implemented. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

is continuing the issue on the talkpage. As you can see, he was involved in this issue before, and now suddenly came back after more than a year-long hiatus. I am not sure if this is another sock, but showing up suddenly after more than a year and making no other edits, makes me suspicious. He was previously blocked for sock evasion. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely the same and blocked as such. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Kay Parker
I'm kind of at the end of my rope with. There's been a few-days-long edit war on happening where myself and  will delete bogus/unsourced info in accordance with WP:BLP, upon which the IP user will revert it and leave abusive, unsigned messages on my talk page.. 68. has been blocked once before for similar behavior. The only reason I come here now is because I really don't want to be abused further over what amounts to a very simple, very bright-line application of BLP.

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

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

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

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

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


 * We've discussed this before. "Best known for" is not encyclopedic, or cited. Who's to say that she's not "best known for" some other role? Say she starred in it - fine. Cites prove that. Say she's most well known for it.. there's nothing to support that. <font color="#6600FF" size="3">K<sub style="vertical-align: top;">arunamon <sup style="color:#FF0000; font-size: 10%; vertical-align: top;"> Talk 22:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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


 * At this point I don't even know what you're talking about. Look at the page history, and notice that I made one, and only one edit. All that edit did was delete some invalid userbox syntax, and the opinionated statement you've all but admitted doesn't belong (about "most known for"). I did not remove anything about roles she's starred in wholesale, and at this point, I demand you either link to the edit where I did so, or stop lying about it. Immediately after that revert, and my initial post about it, you started leaving progressively less civil messages on my talk page in violation of policies on personal attacks and talk page signatures. If you want to add sourced information that she starred in Taboo, go for it. That's totally okay, as I've told you in the talk discussions many, many times now. The only reason that discussion ceased is because you told me to stop talking to you. If that information includes unsourced opinions, I will revert it again. "Adding information" and "completeness" are not excuses for violations of the biography of living persons policy. <font color="#6600FF" size="3">K<sub style="vertical-align: top;">arunamon <sup style="color:#FF0000; font-size: 10%; vertical-align: top;"> Talk 23:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Karumanon, if you haven't been making those edits, what in the world are you talking to me for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.28.103 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are both discussing article content, and you are disputing its removal. By definition, it's a content dispute and this is not the page for that discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Musashi miyamoto
Informed on talk page here.

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * I echo Rolf's comments. I would suggest that in the first instance the user is restricted from making edits directly to that article, and potentially is topic banned altogether. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This user opinions on this subject cannot be considered as being objective, because this user has personal grudge against me since the time when I have shown that he abused his power and was unfair (more on this in my reply to Rolf H Nelson below)Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear admins, I can't help but guess I am the other account accused by Rolf of being a "WP:SPA" (I am a indeed a relatively new account but that has contributed a fair amount to other articles here, here, here, and am drafting a new article here). I appreciate Rolf has highlighted that he is not raising the complaint about myself or InsertCleverPhrase, but I would like to raise some points: It seems reasonably clear that Rolf has his own POV on the emdrive issue (""the emdrive doesn't work" is an objective fact") and that the reported incident here appears to be motivated to advance that POV on the page rather then tackle underlying breaches of policy. There is extensive coverage of the topics being debated on the talk page: notably the "most/many scientists" controversy in the lede, and the underlying science (a purported "Casimir-like effect') behind the drive. From what I see there is a healthy debate on the talk page, and the editing on the main page merely reflects that debate. There are die-hard opponents and proponents on both sides, both of which seem incapable of compromise.--Sparkyscience (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sparkyscience Correct, you're the other SPA editor I was referring to. The three articles you list as having contributed to, zero-point energy, De Broglie–Bohm theory, and electrodynamics all relate to the emdrive or fringe theories advanced to justify the emdrive; thus SPA. Many accounts, despite being SPA or initially SPA, are nevertheless still WP:Here to build an encyclopedia, in which case we're happy to have you here. As for being new, welcome aboard; we were all new editors once, and I'm sorry your initial experience editing Wikipedia is encountering difficulty. Yes, there is debate on the talk page that blocked the change to "most scientists are skeptical", sourced to the Washington Post; I consider the blocking of the edit tendentious, and understand that the people blocking the change obviously do not consider their arguments tendentious. I'm sorry you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the motivation behind this ANI post, hopefully that won't prevent us from working together to improve the RF resonant cavity thruster article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Admins, apparently user Rolf H Nelson considers that attack is the best form of defense, that is why he created this entry in which he twists everything round and distorts the facts. He falsely accuses of alleged wrongdoings not only me but also other editors of that article like Sparkyscience[], to which Sparkyscience replied: "The irony is not lost on me that it appears to be you who is deleting other peoples contributions and that most other editors do not agree with your preferred version of the page. Any particular reason why you copy and pasted this warning on my and Musashi miyamoto but not InsertCleverPhrase talk page seeing as we have all done the same thing? I agree this needs to go to DR.--Sparkyscience (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)" I and several (at least 3 others) other editors merely have been reverting his obvious vandalism. In particular, there has been already reached the consensus twice regarding [], yet he repeatedly ignores that and is pushing his own POV by removing indiscriminately multiple times (about a dozen times) without any good reason the whole sections of the article against the consensus previously reached - this is a seriously disruptive editing, it is in fact vandalism, because it became evident that his motivations have been other than to improve Wikipedia, his removal of the whole sections of the article were not good-faith editions. In order for a disruptive editing to be considered non-vandalism, there must be seen any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to core content policies of neutral point of view is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia and therefore constitutes to be vandalism. I suppose that we all assumed good-faith editions by Rolf H Nelson at the beginning, but evidently repetitive removal without a good reason of the whole sections without waiting to reach a new consensus and ignoring the previous consensus, and ignoring most of the valid points, which successfully rebut his unfounded opinions, show that his intentions are not to improve Wikipedia. His overall behavior in fact shows that he is trolling, because despite being the culprit he dares to falsely accuse victims of his trolling and takes unfounded actions against them unscrupulously lying and distorting the facts. It is quite apparent that he gains satisfaction from such disruptive and cunning behavior like all trolls do.


 * Sparkyscience said to Rolf H Nelson in the talk page of the article: "It should be self evident looking at the talk page that not everybody agrees with your POV, but nonetheless your view has already been taken into consideration with the correct moderation, by clearly stating that many scientists believe it to be impossible and classify it as pseudoscience. Attributed quotes stating that the majority of the scientific community believe such devices as impossible belong in the body not the lede. The lede should be objective and not portray opinions as facts. The other editors are under no obligation to accept your demands for a false compromise that you offer on your own terms to remove the NPOV tag. Continuing to hold the page hostage until you "win" just betrays the fact you are wedded to own ideas. Accusing the other editors of being disruptive while deleting whole sections indiscriminately is clearly hypocritical and unhelpful. You also consistently seem uninterested in addressing or giving specific criticism to the proposed underlying scientific theory by which the device works: Let me ask again - where does the energy of the Casimir effect come from? and is it possible in principle to transfer momentum from the electromagnetic field to matter and under what constraints?--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)"


 * Also confirmed by Insertcleverphrasehere who said to Rolf H Nelson the follwing: "Know when to give up, the majority won't always agree with you, even if you argue ad nauseam. You clearly have a POV to push here, try to exercise some self control. I realise that you don't like that the mainstream media keeps being overly positive about these tests, but thats what the sources are, for better or worse.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"


 * Now, let's move to the other points in his false accusations:

It can be said about all or most of the hypotheses presented here (except perhaps measurements errors). So why would you challenge this one and not the other ones? I have to repeat myself again: "There is no difference between the position of this hypothesis and all the others. All of them have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and subsequently debated in popular press. This is not up to Wikipedia users to decide which one is correct one and which one is not. You have no qualification for that, unless you published a rebuttal in a scientific peer-reviewed paper - but even then the hypothesis should not be deleted, but merely an information about rebuttal paper added. However, no such rebuttal paper has been published in this case." So there are no reasons to remove this hypothesis - if you remove this hypothesis then all the others would have to be removed as well. They are all equal in a sense that they all have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs, and all have been published in secondary sources.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA - this accusation is so ridiculous, I do edit also other languages wikipedias, and I do not always login when edit, because the only thing I care is improving Wikipedia, while it seems that some other editors also like to brag how many edits they did. I do not know how many edits altogether I did in en Wikipedia and other Wikipedias, because it never mattered to me, but certainly more than my logged editions here show. Probably I do not edit as often as some other editors for various reasons, including time constraints, however, there is noting wrong with that. I only edited Emdrive while being logged only because my web browser or wikipedia site remembered me all the time when I was returning to see again the article, and because of that I have been doing all Emdrive editions while being logged. I note that this is also the first time ever, since I began editing Wikipedia many years ago, that I met so much belligerent and unfair editor as Rolf H Nelson.
 * Musashi tried to introduce weakly-sourced and IMHO pseudoscientific content - not true, the consensus on the talk page was that it is a well sourced input[], not different in any way from other inputs. All papers which are in included in the article, just like this one, were published in peer reviewed journals and had multiple secondary sources. If this one is to be removed then all other hypotheses would have to be removed as well, because there is no difference between them regarding weight and sources (all peer-reviewed and all with the same or similar multiple secondary sources). Also I replied to Rolf H Nelson on the article talk page as follows and he did not comment it in any way:
 * All of my edits were to improve Wikipedia, and all of them were done in accordance with Wikipedia polices, and all other active editors of that article confirmed that. When someone attempted to add not well enough sourced new hypothesis (it was not published in a per review paper, but only in an article in a magazine) I and only I requested that it should be removed due to breaking WP:RS policy. Those users who are war editing now (in particular Rolf H Nelson), have not requested this, even though there was a good reason for that, which shows that they are not objective regarding using WP policies. In fact I pointed out their hypocrisy to them then: "Where are those editors eagerly reversing inputs now? What did happen that they allow a hypothesis without a scientific paper to be included in a Wikipedia article?"[] I reached a consensus with the author of that not well sourced input and he agreed with me that it should be deleted and he deleted it.[] So all this shows that I am objective and constructive, I can and do achieve consensus with reasonably behaving editors, and that I do follow all those Wikipedia polices, which I am aware of, in order to improve Wikipedia, but unfortunately that cannot be said about the belligerent users such as Rolf H Nelson and to a lesser extent also JzG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musashi miyamoto (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"The peer-reviewers (presumably physicists) who reviewed the article obviously didn't think it was 'utter nonsense', or else they would not have approved it. Your personal opinion of the validity of the paper's theoretical musings is very unimportant to establishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Rather this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason for the deletion of the section. Specifically why, what policies, is the section in clear violation of?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)"
 * and has been edit-warring for months on and off Not true. I started editing Emdrive article on 6th of December 2016[]. I have always been logged when editing this article and never edited this article before. It is Rolf H Nelson who is edit warring and other editors agree with me.
 * (with sporadic support from the other two dominant page editors) Not true. It was the other way around.[] First Tokamac, Sparkyscience and Insertcleverphrasehere have been reverting disruptive blanking of the whole sections by Rolf H Nelson. So there have been three editors before me reverting Rolf H Nelson disruptive edits and I began supporting them, as the fourth editor, only when it became apparent that what Rolf H Nelson is doing is vandalism (that these were not good-faith edits), and when it became apparent that those three other editors had hard time coping with the malicious, indriscriminate, repetitious removal of the whole sections of the article by Rolf H Nelson against the consensus reached twice amongst active editors on the article talk page.
 * Continued despite a warning on the article talk page [165] and two warnings on his talk page Not true, there was only one false warning (which by the way I did not see for some time). As already other editors pointed out this is all part of pushing his POV against the consensus. When his vandalism did not work, because the 4 editors were firmly against him and none from the active editors supported him, he eventually stopped vandalising and instead started this phoney war accusing falsely other editors, while the evidence shows that he is the culprit. Also he ignored multiple requests from other editors of taking the matter to DR or RS, as other editors multiple time suggested to him, which he has not done yet, and which additionally shows that he is not interested in any compromise, he is not interested in improving this Wikipedia article, he is only interested in personal attacks against editors. Also I note that I did not notice his phoney warning on the article talk page (which was not directed personally to me), because he inserted it after the references.
 * Claims there is WP:CONSENSUS for change, despite active discussion and multiple skeptical editors objecting to it on reasoned grounds. Not true, there was achieved twice the consensus among active editors. Editor InsertCleverPhraseHere replied to Rolf H Nelson on the article talk page as follows: "Still, none of this explains why you unilaterally removed the section under discussion here, citing the need to get consensus before inclusion. A huge discussion has been undertaken here regarding that section, and consensus seems to have formed that the material merits inclusion. I really don't understand why you decided that removal and more talk was the right option here. If you believe the material does not merit inclusion, perhaps you should say so here, as the points you have raised above don't really apply as we DO have reliable secondary sources reporting on this.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)" The views of those two who became inactive had been rebutted and they did not object, so it had to be assumed that they agreed with rebuttals. Rolf H Nelson at that time did not participate in the discussion on the talk page, but instead started his disruptive war editing, even though he had been told multiple times by at least 4 different editors that what he is doing is wrong and disruptive. For some unknown reason (probably to show that there is allegedly less editors against his views than there really are) Rolf H Nelson has not included here Tokamac who also reverted his disruptive blanking of the whole sections of the article; it is also not clear why Rolf H Nelson chose me as his main victim of his trolling attempts, although it seem likely that he did this in retaliation for leaving the warning on his talk page in an attempt to stop his disruptive editing.
 * According to Guy/Jzg, an admin, Musashi wrongly accused Guy of vandalism; Guy's warning is here: [166].) I did not know at that time that vandalism on Wikipedia has more narrow meaning than dictionary meaning. However, what Guy/Jzg did would not be vandalism only if we assume good-faith editing, and I am not so sure that it was such editing when considering his further disruptive edits, because he did not explain the reasons neither of that first edit and later ones (he later removed twice china.com link as the source and he did not explain why he did it). Also Guy/Jzg is using two different usernames, apparently he is using Jzg for disruptive editing and Guy when talking to editors. He knows very well that editors cannot know that he is an admin when he edits as Jzg, because there is not information on his page about that, and yet he told me "don't accuse administrators of vandalism", even though I had not chance of knowing that he is an admin. Then he threatened me in such a way that it looked as abuse of his power and was simply unfair. No matter who he is he should follow Wikipedia policies (he was not) and as an admin be particularly friendly to other editors (he was not to me), being an admin he should shine to others as an example and not behave like he did.
 * Apparently not taking Guy's warning to heart, called my edits "vandalism". Because they are vandalism as already explained in details above. I made only two major additions to the article, and I did not expect when I added them that there will be any problems, because these were good edits with good sources added in agreement with all Wikipedia policies. Other editors later changed the text of my editions to other equivalent texts and I did not complain. But what Rolf H Nelson was doing by repeatedly (about a dozen times) removing indiscriminately whole sections without a good reason and against the consensus reached in the talk page was simply wrong. I improve Wikipedia by adding good, reliable, sourced content, so I create the content, while all Rolf H Nelson did was indiscriminate destruction - he was not improving Wikipedia, but destroying it for his own purposes, which seems to be a satisfaction from trolling other editors as well as administration by creating this entry instead of taking it to DR or RS, as other editors multiple time suggested to him, which he has not done yet, and which additionally shows that he is not interested in any compromise, he is not interested in improving this Wikipedia article, he is only interested in trolling here, because he just does not like the article and apparently the editors who disagree with him.
 * Possibly in retaliation for my placing edit-warring warnings on his Talk page, opened a section on my Talk page titled "Belligerent Editing". Considering his notoriously belligerent behaviour I believe that we all here can only regret that such a warning has not being issued earlier. We can see on this example how he is trolling, when he put, for a false reason, a warning on my talk page it is not according to him non-civil behavior, but when I duly put a warning on his talk page to attempt to stop his war editing against the consensus, then suddenly it is allegedly non-civil behavior according to him - such hypocrisy and perfidy is not helpful to anyone.
 * Accused me of "slandering" the IBTimes and the authors of the paper he's trying to include. Because that is what he did, he said without a good reason on the article talk page about many times awarded International Business Times that "ibtimes historically has a reputation for clickbait" and regarding the authors of the paper "I think the physicist would've said "reading this paper was a waste of my precious time on Earth"." Again he was proved to be wrong by other editors, and ignored it:
 * Also, Musashi is IMHO tendentiously helping block inclusion of well-sourced material:) All I said in that section was this: "Arguments of Insertcleverphrasehere are convincing here. 'Many' is a better choice than 'most'" There is nothing wrong with that. That is in fact a correct way of discussing the issues.

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

What Rolf H Nelson is doing is greatly discouraging users like me to improve Wikipedia, because not every user has time, stamina and will to struggle here with trolls and other belligerent users. Many will give up and Wikipedia content will suffer as the result. For those and other reasons such belligerent behavior as Rolf H Nelson presented when disruptively editing that article and when interacting with other editors, and falsely accusing them of wrongdoings, should not be tolerated, therefore I kindly request to ban Rolf H Nelson for considerable amount of time or at least restrict his access to that article, so that he could not disruptively edit that article again. Kind Regards Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem discouraging you from "improving" Wikipedia... Guy (Help!) 02:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * With such attitude you should not be an admin, really. Shame on you.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you aren't aware that in colloquial English usage, putting a word in so-called "scare quotes" is to intimate that one is being sarcastic, and most probably means exactly the opposite of what seems to be saying. Thus, when Guy says "I don't have a problem discouraging you from 'improving' Wikipedia," what he really means is that your edits have not been improvements, and that being the case he has no problem discouraging you from editing, as doing so will help the encyclopedia from being debased in quality.  This is an attitude which is not antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia in any way, shape or form: we should all -- admins and rank-and-file editors alike -- work towards improving the project, which means removing edits which do not improve it.  We are here to build an encyclopedia, you seem to be here to push a particular point of view about a project which contravenes the laws of physics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think that this is the case only in colloquial English usage, but also regular language usage, and not only English. However, admins should not be sarcasting against ordinary users - this is not polite. Particularly when such sarcasm is unsubstantiated (i.e. when it is false and groundless), like in this case. This particular admin does not behave like an admin would, and not even as a decent ordinary user would, as already described in more details above (so I am not going to repeat myself here). All of my edits were to improve Wikipedia, and all of them were done in accordance with Wikipedia polices, and all other active editors of that article confirm that. It is not true that "you seem to be here to push a particular point of view about a project which contravenes the laws of physics". I have not been doing such a thing. If you still think otherwise please prove it. Also when someone attempted to add not well enough sourced new hypothesis (it was not published in a per review paper, but only in an article in a magazine) I and only I requested that it should be removed due to breaking WP:RS policy. Those users who are war editing now, have not requested this, even though there was a good reason for that, which shows that they are not objective regarding using WP policies. In fact I pointed out their hypocrisy to them then: "Where are those editors eagerly reversing inputs now? What did happen that they allow a hypothesis without a scientific paper to be included in a Wikipedia article?"[] I reached a consensus with the author of that not well sourced input and he agreed with me that it should be deleted and he deleted it.[] So all this shows that I am objective and constructive, I can and do achieve consensus with reasonably behaving editors, and that I do follow all those Wikipedia polices, which I am aware of, in order to improve Wikipedia, but unfortunately that cannot be said about the belligerent users such as Rolf H Nelson and to a lesser extent also JzG. Merry Christmas. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Admins (or non-involved observers), please feel free to ping me in the event there's something in the wall of text above you believe I should address or respond to, or more broadly if you have advice on how I could have handled this in a way that might not have ended up having to bring someone to the ANI board. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I must categorically disagree with the assertions of Rolf. He has personally attempted to remove the section in dispute 7 times! Been reverted by multiple other editors, including myself. He just doesn't like it and is belligerently hounding other editors simply following the sources (peer reviewed primary source with multiple editorially controlled secondary sources). The only thing I can agree with is that Musashi miyamoto should not have accused Rolf of vandalism, rather his behaviour is representative of edit warring and tendentious editing instead (so much so that I've considered taking it to the edit warring noticeboard). I recently informed MM of the precise meaning of the WP policy of this issue on their talk page, and to my knowledge the user in question has not used the wording since. As for the recent battleground that has developed on the article in question's talk page, this is entirely due to Rolf, and I have suggested multiple times that Rolf take it to dispute resolution, but he has declined, and rather has chosen to continue edit warring with the section in question. I also do not appreciate his timing on taking this to AN/I, as having to come on here and defend another user on Christmas day is not my idea of a good holiday. I also am a bit miffed that I was not even informed of this post until I was mentioned above.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The status quo ante is non-inclusion; as I've said before, the onus is on you to take it to the boards; your argument that none of the profferred arguments against inclusion is valid, has been contradicted by multiple experience editors. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case it is obvious that the one who should take it to the boards is the one that is arguing against the consensus developed among all other active editors. Do you expect me to prove a positive? Far more sensible for you to go to RS to prove a negative. Moreover, there is more than one secondary source. No other 'experinece editors' have brought up any policy argument as to why it should not be included, except 'editorial judgement' which is tantamount to simply saying WP:IGNOREALLRULES.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * While I think that MM could adopt less of a battleground approach to their editing, it certainly is not so bad as to deserve disciplinary action, and Rolf's behavior has been as bad or worse. The correct decision here would have been to take this to dispute resolution, not to attempt a witch hunt at AN/I against a new user. I suspect that Rolf thinks the later would have more success than the former, due to the vulnerability of new editors here at AN/I, and why he chose the course of action that he did. MM is making constructive edits, and Sparkyscience seems to be the most knowledgeable editor on the subject that we have, even if his additions are a bit voluminous at times (I don't mind paring down good edits). Neither of these editors has done anything to deserve disciplinary action.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On both occasions, MM doubled-down on his talk page in response to the warnings, that Guy and my editing 'were' vandalism, so I lack your optimism that MM is on the path to changing his ways. FWIW I would disagree and characterize Sparkyscience as a crank; I don't think it matters in this discussion, but you're the one who brought it up. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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


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

Wrongful accusation from
has wrongfully accused me of blanking "Vancouver Whitecaps FC" and is refusing to apologise. All I want is for him to openly acknowledge that I did not blank the page or any part of the page at all. Cédric HATES TPP. 19:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ANI? REALLY???  E Eng  19:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the first of Cedric's edits that I saw on that article: made 2016-12-18T20:22:03. And here is the second:  made 2016-12-23T21:34:03‎. Does any of that make sense?
 * You have taken "‎Voluntary Disappearance" (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919). You're not here. If you are, then we get to address the issues that put you into that discussion: using diacritics in your edit summaries to make them illegible to most native English speakers and attacking anons. As we can see from those two reverts you made, neither have been addressed.
 * So what exactly would you like me to apologize for Cedric? I didn't accuse you of blanking the Whitecaps article, but rather of removing valid material (duties shared between ... and Scott Rintoul) and attacking an anon. That was your second edit, and the first I reverted. Nothing to apologize for there Cedric. You messed up because you hate anonymous editors Cedric. The warning was level four because you took voluntary disappearance rather than face admin action or community sanction, yet you have not disappeared. I made it clear that your actions are unacceptable Cedric.
 * At that point I wanted to see how active you had been, so I started digging deeper. That's when I found Cedric's other edits. You've been quite active for someone who has disappeared. If you were in a witness relocation programme, you would be sanctioned for your behaviour Cedric.
 * No apology is forthcoming from me for warning you for your behaviour and for attacking anons. And for the record, your request should have gone to a different forum, not ANI (as EEng#s' comment alludes to), but since you started the discussion: I would like to suggest a site block in accordance with the earlier ANI discussion. Pinging those involved in the previous discussion:, , Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're lucky I just happened across this, as your ping was malformed. By the way, you should not phrase it as "using diacritics in your edit summaries"; "using gibberish edit summaries" would be better, as it seems likely that the bad framing (as though this was a reinvigoration of the old "diacritic wars") was what confused In ictu oculi and others last time. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * <Insert cute circumlocution for BOOMERANG.> I'm concerned that OP's userpage suggests he has some kind of special role with WMF.  E Eng  20:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support boomerang. Clearly Cedric has undisappeared. As User:Rich Farmbrough (the only one against a block before Cedric disappeared) said in the previous ANI, "this editor is subject to a block at any time they resume this behaviour." Incomprehensible diacritic-filled edit summaries, , , and . Personal attack via Nazi reference  Meters (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

P.S. For future reference, anyone who does not fight back fiercely against wrongful accusations had lost the faith in the system. Cédric HATES TPP. 22:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a very large difference between calling someone a "grammar Nazi", and calling someone "Herr Reichkommissar" as you did. Meters (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, there can be no peace -- Can you spell WP:ḆÁŤȚĻĘĞŘỖŪŃĐ?  E Eng  23:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I rephrase that: Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, we will be unable to work with each other. My apologies for causing confusions. Also, if you want me to withdraw the "Herr Reichkommissar" part, I do that too. My intended reference was East Germany, not Nazi Germany. Cédric  HATES TPP. 23:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the sort of system that you would be well advised to have faith in. It is designed primarily to keep the encyclopaedia running, not to mete out justice either for or against you.
 * The fact is that these types of edit summaries are scarcely readable - to the extent that using them is disruptive.
 * I do not want to see you blocked, but nor do I want to see this disruption continue. I suggest you stop using disruptive edit summaries, then you will have a much better chance of being treated as a colleague.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC).


 * We'll have a deal. Cédric  HATES TPP. 23:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum for political statements, so could you please remove "Hates TPP" from your signature? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And perhaps Cedric could also explain why we should believe that his or her reference to Reichskommissar was a reference to East Germany rather than to Nazi Germany when apparently East Germany never used the term? Meters (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Kaiser Wilhelm had them too so I guess it's OK. Near miss, though.  E Eng  00:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Second Reich. Still has nothing to do with East Germany though, which was Cedric's explanation, and the vast majority of people will naturally associate "Reichkommisar" with the much-more-recent Third Reich, so I don't think it's a "miss" at all. I think Cedric got caught dead-to-rights throwing a Nazi-related reference at WG and his "explanation" was a lame attempt to wiggle out of it, just as his "explanation" that his edit summaries were "suprasegmentals" and not diacritics, was totally beside the point, which is that he was deliberately crafting his edit summaries so that no one (or at least very few people) could understand them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Fine. I admit it. I thought it was referring to the likes of Commissars from other Communist countries before I actually read the article and I admit that I shouldn't use that term now that I realise its Nazi reference. And If I get blocked for a definite period of time for this particular offence, then so be it. But it's only natural for a person to fight back again wrongful accusations like "attacking an anon" — Frankly, if "suspected vandalism" (key word: suspected) counts as an personal attack, I wouldn't know what doesn't count. So if WG refuse to apologise for his wrongful accusations, nobody should have faith in this system afterwards, since it's become little more than a popularity contest. Cédric  03:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Baloney. I don't know you, and I don't know Walter Gorlitz, so "popularity" has nothing to do with anything.  Staying within the boundaries of acceptable behavior is what's on the line here, and that is why you're getting this pushback, which you keep making worse with each statement you make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, Thank you for removing "Hates TPP" from your sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Cedric. I have nothing to apologize for.
 * Support BOOMERANG as well. I was much more accommodating nine months ago when Cedric was making some useful edits and the editor's edit summaries were somewhat legible. Both of those have deteriorated. Couple the editor's stance against anons, and I can't support anything other than a block. My preference would be indefinite own talk page privileges left intact so that an appeal can be made, something along the lines of a Wikipedia:Standard offer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please indent this as needed. The diacritics-y stuff in edit summaries is IPA. kʰä̃nt̚ bi ðat̚ ˈdɪfɪˌkəɫt̚ tʊ weɪtʰ fɔ̝˞ˑ ə̃n əˈfɪʃəɫ əˈnaʊsmə̃nt̚ naʊ, kʰæ̃n ɪt? = "can't be that difficult to wait for an official announcement now, can it?"; səˈspɛk̚tʰɪ̆d̚ ˈvæ̃ndəɫlɪzə̆m = "suspected vandalism". Gotta run, tofu turkey time. --Shirt58 (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite block for Cedric
Obviously, I'm not still angry about what happened in April, and I don't even fully remember what was so bad, but my motion then had a fair bit of support, and was only shot down because Cedric chose to voluntarily disappear. Now it is clear that he has rescinded this offer. It's clear from his edits in this thread that he is WP:NOTHERE. I would ping the users who already !voted on a non-specific "boomerang", but I got Christmas-y stuff to do. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes. NOTHERE, Disruptive editing, NPA, all sorts of stuff. Indef until he can convince the community that he's here to contribute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If WG never wrongfully accused me of blanking any page (since I never did), none of this would've happened. It only natural for a person to fight back like a cornered animal when wrongfully accused. Cédric  03:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, if you hadn't filibustered the last indef discussion by saying you would disappear voluntarily and then not actually disappearing, none of this would've happened. You have to understand that this has nothing whatsoever with being "wrongfully accused" (which by the way was a lie to begin with, as you clearly did blank some of the contents of that page, several times). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88 is perfectly correct in his analysis. And, no, in a civilized world -- which Wikipedia is intended to be -- it is not at all appropriate for an editor to act "like an animal" under any circumstances. That you think this is the case is actually a strong argument for your being indeffed, as you do not seem to understand the essential nature of a collaborative project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - The link to the conversation from last April combined with the statements in this thread shows WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Hard to ignore that this is a WP:NOTHERE situation. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, does WP:NOTHERE prohibits fighting wrongful accusations? Cédric  03:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Leaning support. The prior ANI and current behavior here is a textbook example of an editor who does not have the necessary clue to edit collaboratively. "[F]ight back like a cornered animal" - Cedric please get a bit of perspective, this is Wikipedia not a fight for your life in some dark alley or battlefield for God's sake! The best thing you can do is drop this because ANI is simply not the place to use to try to force apologies. Beyond that stop using silly letters and made up spellings in edit summaries. It is disruptive, pointless and simply not amusing on any level.  J bh  Talk  03:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - There was no wrongful accusation by WG. The warning (using a standard template) was for removing content from a page, and that is what Cedric had done.  Cedric's contributions to this thread demonstrate clearly that he does not understand the concept of collaborative editing, so he doesn't belong here. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite block per all of the above and below. Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. BOOMERANGING here just to prove that he's a recurring problem who only got out of an index the last time by promising to disappear only to break that promise. Just not a benefit to the encyclopedia, and a battleground mentality to boot. oknazevad (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh, even Galileo got out of an Index.  E Eng  05:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How ironic that one could get an excellent classical education just by reading the works on the list, and today's parents and educators – Catholic and otherwise – would cry out "Hallelujah" if a student today were to take up that task. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support WP:NOT HERE. I have zero AGF left for this editor. Avoided a probable block at the last ANI by agreeing to disappear from Wikipedia but returned with more of the same behaviour. The disingenuous excuse for a Nazi attack is laughable. Meters (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that this debate had degraded into a popularity contest, which makes wrongful accusations perfectly fine but makes defending oneself against wrongful accusations frowned upon as "WP:BATTLEGROUND", I don't see the need to defend myself any more, especially now that I can't even use a figure of speech without being targeted and intentionally misinterpreted (especially by ). Here is my closing statement: Peace out! And I hope this will go down as the biggest case of tyranny of the majority in English Wikipedia's history. Cédric 05:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WG not only wrongfully accused me of removing encyclopaedic contents (while the content that I removed can be easily disproven by adequate research: David Ousted was never named the captain). He also wrongfully accused me of attacking an IP because I said "suspected vandalism" in the edit summary. The fact is, I made a deal in April and, after the deal, I already stopped attacking any editor unless explicitly provoked.
 * Hijiri88 not only has been intentionally misinterpreting me simply for the purpose of taking me down since April, but also is joining the ranks of false accusers by falsely accusing me of falsely accusing WG and of blanking any page, neither of which I am guilty of. I do not know about his motivation, but for someone to be so motivated that s/he resolved to wrongfully accusing me, s/he has to be benefitting somehow from my demise.
 * Long story short, everything here was incited by two wrongful accusations, which the accuser had since refused to withdraw.
 * I hope this goes down as the biggest case of tyranny in Wikipedua's history too: it would speak very well for Wikipedia.  E Eng  06:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cedric, if you don't stop pinging me I'm going to privately ask an admin to block you for a few days while the discussion of whether you should be blocked indefinitely takes place. Your "figure of speech" apparently refers to your use of the word "wrongfully". If you did not mean to claim that you had not blanked material from that article, then you should not have claimed that it was a false accusation. I don't want to post here again. Kindly leave me alone. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Mistrial due to  Given that has wrongfully (and possibly maliciously) accused me of:
 * Lying about accusing me of continuing to attack IPS (which had already stopped since April);
 * Actually blanking any page (which I never did),

I move for an immediate mistrial and a new trial without. Cédric 03:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a legal system. This is another piece of information which shows that you really don't understand this place, and don't belong here. Someone please hat this nonsense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Already commented above, but in case it's not obvious: Support Cedric made me think that things would be better this past March and April (in the previous ANI discussion) and the voluntary disappearance did not seem to work. Here I am being asked to apologize for placing a standard warning template on Cedric's page for removal of valid content. All of Cedric's good edits have been eclipsed by the voluntary disappearance and now only negative, skewed and at times angry responses ensue. Editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to attack anon editors and write edit summaries in a script only he and possibly one or two others can fully understand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Not a very Christmasy spirit from this editor. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The messages here and the excessive pinging prove the point an indefinite block is needed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Don't usually comment here but the replies to others combined with that obnoxious and ridiculous message at the top of User talk:Cedric tsan cantonais, their page isn't protected, really doesn't show any other way. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly not here to improve the project. The behavior exhibited here and in March demonstrate that. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 19:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support : I've seen enough from this report alone. The continued complaints of "I just want him to apologise" are at WP:STICK level now, and of course, his claim of vanishing is an abuse of the community's trust and patience. Plus, didn't someone say something about WP:BATTLEGROUND to him earlier in this report? I got as far as the thing about 'East Germany' and 'Nazi Germany' before continuing scrolling, so there may be things I've missed.MM ('"HURRRR?'')  <font color="Gold">(Hmmmmm.) 23:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support- the deliberate use of diacritics in edit summaries is annoying enough, but this continuing combative behavior is highly unproductive. It's time the community make Cedric disappear for one year. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Based on the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality shown here alone, never mind the boomerang! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Sigh. IPA in edit summaries? That's just designed to be annoying. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that, as it's not technically IPA or even any consistent system. Cedric's claim that his spellings accurately represent English sounds is meant simply to troll, as is his continued claim that he is simply fighting the "anti-diacritic" crowd. And as the main pre-ban target of User:JoshuSasori and User:LittleBenW, and one of the primary pre-ban targets (and probably the main target in the last two years or so) of User:Kauffner, I know better than most how to handle anti-diacritic crowd and how to identify someone who actually is "pro-diacritic", and Cedric simply isn't it. Honestly, I'd kinda like to a see a CU on him to find out if this was a joe-job by one of the above named anti-diacritic sockpuppeteers. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - I personally think that this doesn't go far enough. Cedric is clearly only here to troll for the lulz, as evidenced by their gobblty gook edit summeries. I would personally go siteban, myself, but I know that I am far too unforgiving to this type of obvious trolling behavior.--Adam in MO Talk 04:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It comes up quite a lot, and I still have not found a definitive answer (neither WP:BLOCK nor WP:BAN are clear on the matter), but a community-imposed indefinite block is functionally the same as a community-imposed site ban, as few admins would unilaterally undo a community consensus indefinite block without clear community consensus to rescind the "indefinite block", which itself would be functionally identical to a community consensus to remove a site ban. Yes, sometimes discussions take place to raise a community-imposed indefinite block to "site ban" level, but it's usually a formality, and many times admins have brought the de facto non-distinction up as reason not to unblock on appeal, or closed discussions like this in a manner that more closely resembles a site ban. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support indefinite block. Reasoning: the editor has effectively breached the unspoken (read:unwritten) agreement he entered into following the previous AN/I, whereby he disappeared in the knowledge that he could be blocked if he returned to disrupt. Well, he did and he did. Further, far from demonstrating any willingness to listen to the community here, they have not demonstrated any understanding of the seriousness of the affair. This includes not only a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude but frankly WP:TAKINGTHEPISS by flauntingly continuing the same behaviour that brought them to ANI twice. Thirdly, the 'message' on their talk page runs against some of our fundamental philosophies. The continuing use of diacritics in edit summaries is childish, but demonstrates a near WP:CIR-level of myopia as to what is expected of them.  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  15:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

The other user, in the end, told me that if I don't like it, I can go to WP:ANI. Well, here I am. If I'm wrong, will somebody without a scornful attitude please show me the provision that says that a "credible claim of notability" bars the use of PROD? And if I'm right, well, then I'm reporting the other user for his behavior in that, while, yes, anyone can deprod articles, doing so, in bulk, for an invalid reason is defeating an express Wikipedia purpose and is therefore disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that there's already a thread above (which I haven't read yet) about the same user over the same issue. 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)
 * 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 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)


 * 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
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)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * AN/I should not be a first resort. 🔯 Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk)  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. 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)

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

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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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 <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for the content dispute, this is the place for the procedural issue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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  5  7  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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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   5  7  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  5  7  01:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think these might be the potential 1RR violations 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   5  7  00:45, 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)
 * 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   5  7  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)
 * , you actually did violate the ARBPIA rules. Youreinstated a reverted edit without gaining consensus. That is forbidden. 🔯 Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 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 <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * e/c 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   5  7  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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the new ruling from the esteemed members of ARBCOM. 🔯 Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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   5  7  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, Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann (at their 1st AfDed article), and their newest contributions at this talk page emphasize them, and 2 attempts at "substantiate your claims" were unattended. Repeated NPA warnings at their talk page, including the last ones with threats of indef blocks, have not helped, and including efforts at mentoring how Wikipedia works. Last ANIs about hostility were here and here. WP:NOTHERE applies given the overblown hostility. Note, before anyone asks about notifying, I was not even going to touch their talk page given the continued harassment. Someone else is welcome to, perhaps someone who is uninvolved. SwisterTwister  talk  22:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 since they've had significant interaction with them. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia and ignoring facts. This is clearly personal I have no idea why SwisterTwister has a problem with me but this is pretty pathetic behavior. Can someone block them from going after everything I do? DanHamilton1998 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , 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)


 * I was the one who started the discussion which is seems to have led us here, so I figure I better comment. My post was just meant to point out that DanHamilton1998 was, as the creator of the article, not notified about the Ed Brown AfD and, therefore, it was understandable that he would be upset and post this. I also feel the DanHamilton1998's frustration was probably further increased because the draft had actually been approved and added to mainspace by one AfC reviewer only to be nominated for deletion shortly thereafter by another AfC reviewer. It would have been best for SwisterTwister to notify the DanHamilton1998 of the AfD and not assume that he would find about it in some other way. In the same way, it would have been best for SwisterTwister to notify DanHamilton1998 of this ANI discussion instead of asking someone else to do it. If you're going to start an XfD or ANI or whatever, then you have to be willing to complete all the steps in the process. However, I don't think this kind of thing warrants any admin action simply because I don't believe it was done out of malice or as some sort of personal vendetta. I just hope that SwisterTwister learns from this experience and is a little more aware of this kind of thing in the future and how it can quickly lead to problems such as this. Adding a relevant notification template to a concerned editor's user talk does not take much time and does not require a huge amount of effort, but it can go along way to helping avoid problems between editors.
 * As for DanHamilton1998, I understand he is frustrated, but I've tried to explain to him how Wikipedia works and how it's best not to make things personal. For sure, it's unfortunate that he was not notified about the AfD, but I don't think that means someone is out to get him. Articles are nominated for deletion all the time and mistakes in the process are made. Moreover, multiple editors !voted "delete" in this particular AfD, which might indicate that SwisterTwister's nomination was not as frivolous as DanHamilton1998 believes. Of course, DanHamilton 1998 is perfectly within his right to ask for the AfD close to be reviewed at WP:DRV based upon the fact that he wasn't notified, but resorting to personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations is not acceptable at all. Given the circumstances, however, a block for WP:NOTHERE seems inappropriate because DanHamilton1998 has been making good faith attempts to improve Wikipedia. Rather, I think it needs to be stressed that on Wikipedia it's sometimes best to take a step back and let things cool down a bit before hitting the "Save changes" button and that it's also a good idea to seek help from more experienced editors when having problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, however, 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 Wikipedia stands for. SwisterTwister has drug me into another battle so here I am I will stop at nothing until your actions are reprimanded, you won in dragging me into this again, I hope it brings plenty of joy to your life SwisterTwister DanHamilton1998 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * '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 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,, 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 . 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)
 * Just for reference, not all of my interactions with DanHamilton1998 have been pleasent as can be seen here, which is based upon this discussion. I think he's pretty passionate and maybe a little possessive about the subjects he edits, which unfortunately can sometimes create issues with others. I don't think further exacerbating this situation by starting an ANI thread about SwisterTwister and trying to bringing this to SwisterTwister's user talk, especially by adding comments like this to threads started by others which have no connection at all to what's going on here, was a wise thing to do. Passion is a good thing to bring to Wikipedia editing, but it's also important to be willing to take a step back and let things cool down so that proper process can run its course. While I don't think a block for NOTHERE is warranted because I feel DanHamilton1998 sincerely wants to contribute to Wikipedia, the community does have the right to block any editor it feels is being unnecessarily disruptive as a way of preventing further problems.
 * My suggestion to you is to just let this be and leave it for the community figure out how to best resolve. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which can use some cleaning up/improving in one way or another. You can pick one at random, or look for ones whose topic interest you and just be bold. Nobody will jump all over you for making good faith mistakes, and this might be a good way for you to learn more things about Wikipedia editing and Wikipedia in general. Seeing how experienced editors edit and apply Wikipedia's policies/guidelines is really good way to improve your own editing skills in my opinion. You can also, if you want, take a sort wikibreak for the New Year, let your batteries recharge, and come back feeling refreshed for 2017. You have already been warned a couple times by the community that certain behaviors are not acceptable, so continuing to engage in that kind of thing will almost surely lead to your account being blocked.
 * As for you, you are obviously the more experienced editor here and know that dealing with new editors (especially SPAs) can be a trying experience sometimes. You should have notified DanHamilton1998 of the AfD not only as a courtesy, but also to ensure that all sides get a chance to participate in the process. You've nominated two articles created by DanHamilton1998 and each time you failed to notify him of the discussion. You prodded one of those article first, did not notify DanHamilton1998 of the prod, but had no problem referring to the prod in your AfD nomination of the article. I'm not sure why you didn't notify DanHamilton1998 of any of these things and it certainly doesn't justify any of his personal attacks made against you, but it might have helped contribute to his perception that you're out to get him in some way. It might help resolve this if you just acknowledge this and make it clear that you aren't out to get him.
 * XfDs/CSDs/PRODs need to be transparent and follow proper process for them to mean anything. You just started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RocketLoans and yet you did not notify the article's creator. went and did that here. You also did not notify the creators of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olwen Kelly, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Fish (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungry Harvest, so Primefac went and did those notifications as well. You also do not seem to be adding delsort tags to your nominations. These are a little things which may be optional to some extent, but which are important to ensuring that XfDs progress as smoothly as possible and things that help attract editors familiar with what's being discussed. It may add a few extra steps to the process, but it's not something that takes an unreasonable amount of time and nothing that an editor who is regularly nominating articles for deletion should not be willing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Keri
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)


 * 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?  Yinta n  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?  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)




 * 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. Katietalk 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.  E Eng  17:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been AFd'd for the 2nd time. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:1Wiki8...
I do not think 1Wiki8...'s conduct towards other editors is appropriate for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. They are either aggressive, accusing other editors of bias and disruption without evidence, dismissive of concerns, or outright ridiculing another editor (again without providing an explanation for their own conduct that's being questioned). It seems that disagreement is not attempted to be resolved by discussion, argument or evidence, but by ad hominems. Particularly the conduct towards SwisterTwister borders on harassment - if they have an issue with that editor's conduct they should bring it to an appropriate noticeboard, not raise it in every deletion discussion where their paths meet. Given their attitude, I expect me raising my concerns about their conduct on their talk page would have been dismissed too, thus I'm bringing it here. I don't quite think this needs a block yet, but I do think it would help if some uninvolved admin could caution them to change their approach, with a threat of future blocks if this goes on. Huon (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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?. thoughts? I do agree the behavior aimed at  almost reaches the threshold of harassment. Regardless of the outcome of this thread 1wiki8.....'s behavior is clearly unacceptable. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 (Talk) 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... &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 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 Wikipedia history, and the last bastion for every user who has ever been sanctioned. Timothy Joseph Wood  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  <sub style="color:blue;">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 Wikipedia have always been settled through collateral attacks such as accusing one's opponent of incivility or other violations of the rules. This is largely because Wikipedia has no mechanism at all for authoritatively deciding disputes over content, but does have mechanisms for settling disputes over conduct, which causes disputes over content to be transformed into disputes over conduct." Carrite (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. Timothy Joseph Wood 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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 Wikipedia variant of something addressed by XKCD on free speech: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express." Or, rewritten here, "Defending an action by saying 'the rules allow it' is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your action is that it's not literally illegal to do." --Calton | Talk 00:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides the debatable removal of PRODs, what about his snide remarks and taunting of SwisterTwister? Are those perfectly fine and the almost flippant and battle ground behavior they seem to display with anything remotely related to deletion discussions? These are clearly an issue. You can't dismiss these concerns with "its solely a content dispute" because it isn't. Something needs to be done, be it community imposed civility restrictions or a final warning from the closing administrator. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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  <sub style="color:blue;">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. --M ASEM (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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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 (Talk) 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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  <sub style="color:blue;">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 Standard offer in six months. Timothy Joseph Wood  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  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  17:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

POV edit warrior at Yes California
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)

Request to change visibility of an edit
I am not sure if this is the right place but I want to request that the visibility of the following edit. An IP address added an extremely pornographic image to the page of the creator of a children's show. I'm not complaining about the existence of such an image or saying that Wikipedia should be censored, but somebody innocently going through the history of somebody who works on children's show should not be subjected to seeing such an image. JDDJS (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Revdel, please?
diff The ES. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Kuala Namu International Airport
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)

Quick block plz
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. Timothy Joseph Wood 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

✅ 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

❌ 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

✅ per User:Timothyjosephwood's comment and block (by Beeblebrox). --JustBerry (talk) 03:27, 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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  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, . <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  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,  or any active administrator, can you semiprotect Steppenwolf (band)? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   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)

WP:NOTHERE
Editor is pretty evidently here mostly to troll and vandalize. They have some productive contributions, but have only made a handful of edits over the last four years, and among them are these gems:


 * Delete Vanity page for a non-notable milquetoast suburban rapper wannabe. On a more subjective note, his latest track sounds like somebody cupped a warm fart and wafted it at a theremin.


 * Inserting a link to Bradley Manning as a hypothitical "attacker" in an unrelated article, changing picture to deleted test image.


 * Adding: Đorđe Martinović (b. 1929) Serbian anal gymnast and bottle enthusiast to Gjilan. Martinoovic apparently, was a man who was raped with a broken glass bottle during ethic conflict in Kosovo.


 * Userpage boasts: This user hates you and everyone you care about, This user thinks Osama bin Laden is was the greatest man on Earth. and currently Member of the GNAA, that is the "Gay Niggers Association of America".


 * Recently revived after no edits since August to !vote Keep Delete this and I bring the GNAA back to life, this is a threat at Articles for deletion/The Great Meme War.

Besides that, I would not at all be surprised if user:Homph wasn't their sock, since the account was created a half our after their comment to !vote keep on the same AfD. They're evidently a sock of someone, since they created an account to vote at AfD and un-red-link their talk and user pages. Incognito was apparently floated as a sock of user:Pickbothmanlol, but the SPI went nowhere. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That was very clear cut - per the above concerns I have blocked indefinitely. Some of this editors earlier (2008) edits are quite constructive, but more recently this has declined significantly. There may be the issue of a compromised account, but given this edit from 2014 it looks unlikely -- samtar talk or stalk 13:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Tiggerjay
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)
 * , 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)


 * - 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. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (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. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  07:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  07:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * His last edit to the article was on December 28, followed by some slightly unnecessary 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.  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 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? Tigger Jay&thinsp; (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 <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 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 Tigger Jay&thinsp; (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)

User:JG4236

 * -- 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)

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. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 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)
 * I applaud the strongly AGF/soft attitude being applied here, but I do think there are limits. This user has clearly benefited from every possible effort at outreach short of a block--assuming someone has attempted to reach out via email?  As an autoconfirmed user they either are or should be aware that they have a talk page and that they need to be at least minimally responsive to community concerns expressed through that channel.  Regardless, as a practical matter, the continued creation of problematic content needs to cease so I absolutely support a short term block--though hopefully a minimal one of 24 or 48 hours to start. <font color="#19a0fd">S <font color="#66c0fd">n <font color="#99d5fe">o <font color="#b2dffe">w  <font color="#d4143a">let's rap 02:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This appears to have started again after the block expired. All the new articles have been BLP PRODed, and I put a 4im warning on their user talk page. They stopped editing after that, but if this continues going forward I would suggest a one week block. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I blocked indef with a note that the user can be unblocked as soon as he starts engaging with the people posting on his Talk page and works out what the problem is. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Discouraging closure decisions and previous disruptions in article creation
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. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  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 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. 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 's point, the OP has also appealed the topic ban at AN. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  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)

IP user attempting to game Afd
IP 103.229.120.137 has tried a false redirect and a false closure at the Afd nomination re: Mongol Aspiration School. For an IP with few edits this shows a good knowledge of Wikipedia coding protocols and suggests a sock and perhaps an undisclosed paid editor. I've reverted the changes and suggest an admin take a deeper look here. Thanks, Jus  da  fax   06:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just had my !vote in this AfD deleted by the IP user in question (I've reverted it, of course). I'd like to know what Admin action will be taking place? Exemplo347 (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for 31 hours due to their clearly disruptive behaviour, which continued after a warning. I've watchlisted both the AfD and the article -- samtar talk or stalk 13:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Exemplo347 (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Request immediate block of and rollback of mass delinking.
Requesting a temporary block of and a rollback of recent edits, who has gone a mass delinking of Shōnen, despite that not being the outcome of a recent AFD, which was to redirect to Shōnen manga. Almost every one of these links are intended to go to Shōnen manga, however, JMHamo actions have only complicated matters. I've already asked JMHamo to stop the delilnking, but they have continued with the activity. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to diff timestamps, you asked JMHamo to stop at 17:57 and their most contributions (as of right now) end at 17:46. So they had stopped before you asked. Woodroar (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Novonium copyright violation
User:Novonium has received a final warning for copyright violation, however Joan_Triadu is translated word-for-word from (from "Publicà Endimió" to "Cartes i textos") a copyrighted source. Siuenti (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I note that this user has not communicated with anyone since 2012, including acknowledging the repeated copyright issues. ❌ Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2017 (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 talk or stalk 17:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, a couple of these have been recreated and are copyvios - could you provide a list of possible students you've come across? -- samtar talk or stalk 17:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * has also created multiple attempts. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Add 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:
 * ,, , , and . Nthep (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * add and  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  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)
 * Any joy? Just deleted another (Daa A7) -- samtar talk or stalk 14:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No replies either at talk pages or Edu/Inicdents. Nthep (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm as convinced as I can be that Earflaps is a paid editor and also that they are a sock of MusicLover, but I appreciate that I could be wrong, so please let's hear your comments. If I am right, the contribution surveyor makes for scary viewing. SmartSE (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the user is creating articles based on content they found online without attribution than we also have an issue of copyright infringement.
 * Have deleted the page The Sledge/Leather Project as it was created without proper attribution of the original authors or the origin of the text. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These two accounts use very very similar referencing style.
 * They take part of the url, typically a short text segment, use "ref name" tags, and collect all the refs at the end of the article. They put quotes around the names.
 * Here is MusicLover650 from 2012
 * Here is Earflaps from 2012. And this is the first edit they every made. Yes that is correct one edit created this. Fully linksed. Refs formatted in MusicLover650's usual style. External links, infobox, and categories and everything. They were clearly not a new editor.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And looking at MusicLover650's first edits and they obviously were not a new user either. This was their second still live edit. There first live edit was deleted G11 for being advertising and was 11,751 bytes in one go. Hum Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Found more evidence.

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

2) User:Earflaps is than created and recreates the "Sledge Leather" page and keeps it up and makes the money. They on September 28, 2012 also uploads an image called "BlakeMorganPublicity" which has since been deleted due to copyright problems.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Opened a SPI here Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * I have reviewed this editor's article creations as SmartSE stated, and have found a pattern that fits the undisclosed paid contributor profile to a T, especially so in 2015-2016 with a steady stream of creations on corporate entities, CEOs, financial advisors, medical device companies, and the like -- nearly three dozen articles that appear just like those of a paid contributor in those two years. This point of view hasn't been made public until now; however, Earflaps accuses me here in the of being part of a cabal out to get him, related in some way I can't explain to the Daniel Amen kerfluffle. So I'd like to say for the record that I find this accusation inappropriate and wildly non-germane to the AfD in which it occurred, just as if it was intended to deflect attention from the content of his contributions. Otherwise, I agree with SmartSE's analysis and conclusion and find the editor's flat denial to be in no way credible.
 * Additionally, if anyone should doubt that American/UK music promoters exist which advertise their Wikipedia article writing prowess, see this and this. - Brianhe (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The circumstantial evidence points convincingly to this being a case of undisclosed paid editing, yet says they are not paid. It is theoretically possible the editor takes a keen interest in out-of the-way medical device companies and obscure US businessmen and likes building puffy articles about them scratched-up from the meagrest and/or unreliable sources, but I find it hard to conceive that's really what's happening. If we look at Tommy Hilfiger, before Earflap's involvement this contained some criticism about alleged "sweatshop conditions" and a court settlement, yet this was apparently moved to the Tommy Hilfiger (company) article. In fact, looking at the dated edits this "move" never happened – strangely, the "controversies" were added by anothed editor,  before being "respectfully" massaged-in by Earflaps.  is almost certainly another WP:SOCK, since in their few edits thay also overlap with Earflaps at Hell & Heaven Metal Fest. After Earflap's subsequent work the company's article now has a "Corporate responsibility" section which is not so much "criticism" as a paean to the superb ethics of the Hillfiger corporation, heavily sourced to the company's own material. In other words, a pretty slick PR whitewashing job has apparently been done.
 * While the community can siteban Earflaps on the basis of the volume of WP:QUACKing, the reach of this is so big (e.g. Earflaps has worked on the The Coca-Cola Company article, which suggests this may be a high-profile PR outfit) I would hope it was something WMF legal would pursue to get some real-world traction on. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol - if all my edits are obviously paid, how come you are the first people to bring me to ANI ever? I see even more now why most other large posters dont' seem to stick around long - they get hounded off the website. I regularly clean up crap pages and have probably interacted with hundreds upon hundreds of banned puppets by now - going through the list and picking one I seem to have some similarities to is cherry picking evidence to the extreme, as far as I am concerned. And where is your analysis of all my beautiful festival pages, for example? Out of all my edits, you only seem interested in the corporations and biographies I've bothered bringing to (basically) good quality. This whole thing is ridiculous. Posting big pages and touching controversy sections is not some hard proof of COI puppetry, just of nerdy dedication with ocd tendencies. The Tommy Hilfiger page, for example, is incredibly high-profile - and yet not a single editor disagreed with me on a single point on that whole page, because my edits were awesome and sensible.
 * Further comment – and what is with creating redirects like this? And with the *vast* number of edits to categories. Some kind of SEO? Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes the editing appears to be that of someone with a COI. Definitely they are promotional and to such a degree that admin interventions are required IMO. A checkuser may be useful but as they are sophisticated might come up empty. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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


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

Proposal
There is sufficient on evidence on Wikipedia of promotional editing and a long history of the same. I would like to proposal a community ban. Cleanup will of course time and likely all this editor's edits need to be reviewed. Post any dealing with medicine to WT:MED for our review. Reviewing their edits pertaining to medicine was what raised my concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 - Jus  da  fax   00:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User: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)
 * 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 Wikipedia. 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?'')  <font color="Gold">(Hmmmmm.) 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)

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:



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  Precious bodily fluids 10:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Is this possible? Note that  is doing the same stuff today.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 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. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:31, 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. 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 and then the IP editor (whose precise address seems to change slightly every week or so) opened Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 145. closed the case when the IP apparently abandoned or lost interest in it. However, the IP has subsequently posted at User talk:KDS4444, after I removed some comments they made at 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 &#124; talk 11:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks,, 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 &#124; 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 &#124; talk 12:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Aaron's The Best: Ownership and CIR issues
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,, 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?(talk) 12:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA has some involvement in this somewhere? MM ('"HURRRR?'')  <font color="Gold">(Hmmmmm.) 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 Wikipedia'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?(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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)

Need some rev deletes
Any admins about? SW3 5DL (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks anyway. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Involved admin closing RM discussion and threatened opposers with sanctions
It's been suggested to me that I take my complaint about an WP:INVOLVED admin to a more appropriate forum than WP:MR. So let's try here. A few days ago, closed a Requested Move discussion, on a topic that he had previously spoken out strongly on, and in doing so threatened sanctions against editors who did nothing more than oppose the request. Should he be sanctioned for this? Or at least can some uninvolved admin rewrite a more sensible close rationale? Details: The substance of the RM discussion concerned WP:JR and it's applicability to styling names in film titles. Nyttend's previous involvement in this topic is shown in these places:
 * The Requested Move with Nyttend's closing threat to opposers: Talk:Steamboat Bill, Jr.
 * Nyttend's previous strong expression against application of WP:JR to non-bio articles: User talk:Dicklyon
 * Nyttend's opposition to the WP:JR guideline rewrite as a whole:
 * Nyttend's prior anti-MOS noises at various places including: Talk:Harrison–Crawford State Forest

Nyttend did not get his way in any of these previous discussions, so may have been a bit sore about all that.

Nyttend's closing rationale states a threat of sanctions to those 6 editors who opposed the move on the basis of WP:JR: "Local consensus is in favor of moving. Let this be a firm warning: imposition of a MOS page to articles not under that page's scope, without firm consensus at talk, is disruptive and will result in sanctions if repeated."

Note that this was not a case of anyone trying to apply or impose the MOS. It was a longstanding stable title, and the proposal to add the comma was opposed on the basis of the guidance in the MOS. For opposing a proposed moved, and citing the guidance, these 6 editors are being threatened by Nyttend with sanctions, even though he is involved in the exact question and is notoriously anti-MOS.

Note that I am not seeking an overturn of the move, as 2/3 of editors have supported it. But I would like to have Nyttend at least told how inappropriate this was, and get a neutral admin to replace the closing rationale with something more sensible. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, if it takes threats of sanctions to inhibit the obsessive MOS fundamentalists from their antics, I say it's all to the good. Note that in this case they wanted -- no, demanded -- that the actual title of a film be changed to fit a Wikipedia guideline THAT DOESN'T EVEN APPLY. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When did opposing a proposed move of a long-stable title come to be considered an "antic"? None of us suggested that the name be changed; it was stable for many years.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Already at WP:AN. You've already demonstrated bad faith in several ways, as demonstrated there; it's time to add forumshopping to the list of reasons for sanctions.  Meanwhile, with this section you've gone against WP:TALKNEW's "Keep headings neutral" requirement.  Why should you not be blocked right now, and given your extensive block log (blocks in nine separate incidents, if we ignore reblocks and the like; one for sockpuppetry and eight for inappropriate conflicts for other editors), why should such a block not be lengthy?  Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So now I'm being threatened with sanctions for things I was blocked for years ago? OK, whatever. Dicklyon (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Years ago certain people tried to serially reassure concerned editors, demurring and insisting that MOS was mere guidance, advice, assembled best practice, and not actually strict guidelines to force obedience of the unwashed and unruly. If the ensuing years and actions of the MOStafarians have resulted in short tempers, it is only as predicted by those not reassured long ago. MOS should be a resource for all, not a redoubt for some. Shenme (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reality of the fact is the Wikipedia has many, many editors who cannot tell the difference between a mandatory policy and a suggested editing guideline, and they will fight like hell to enforce MOS without giving any due consideration for what is appropriate for a specific situation and this is even after ArbCom ruled more than once that edit warring to enforce MOS was not a legitimate excuse. I would say that more then 90% of the conflicts I get into with other editors are over their fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of MOS. I've even been driven to quoting the opening of the MOS main page in a box at the top of my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So now opposing a move on the basis of guidelines is deserving of sanctions? And it's OK for involved admins to close discussions?  Do you see how you're veering off the point here? Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Post non-admin-close request to admins
The non-admin close above seems odd, suggesting that AN is the right place, when that page says "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead."

A simple request: could some uninvolved neutral admin please take a look and state for the record that Nyttend either was or was not WP:INVOLVED in the issue of the RM discussion that he closed, or point me to a place in previous discussions where some neutral admin already stated such a determination? Dicklyon (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm an uninvolved admin, and I stated at Move review/Log/2016 December that the assertion that Nyttend was involved was "at the very least, not proven". At least one other uninvolved admin (Ivanvector) has endorsed the close. Can't you just drop the matter and abide by the result (whatever it turns out to be) of the move review? Deor (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So by "not proven" you mean that links to his prior posts against the application of WP:JR to non-bio articles, and against WP:JR itself, do not show that he was involved in the question of whether WP:JR was applicable to a non-bio article title? I'm having trouble understanding; what sort of more "proof" could convince you that another admin was "involved" in the discussion topic that he closed?  Dicklyon (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I agree that Ivanvector made a perfectly good statement in endorsing the move, except he didn't comment on the core issue, which is that the closer was INVOLVED. Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please supply evidence they were involved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you an admin? Did you read the evidence I linked in the complaint you closed above?  Never mind, I know the answers. Dicklyon (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin, and I "state for the record that Nyttend either was or was not WP:INVOLVED in the issue of the RM discussion that he closed". Now will you shut up? (Somehow I doubt that you will.) Deor (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, probably I won't. If you had stated anything like a plausible explanation of your assertion that he was not involved, then maybe.  Oh, well, at least you will willing to commit, unlike all the other admins. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hold on, didn't I ask for an uninvolved neutral admin? Doesn't the fact that you already endorsed his close make you involved, too?  Sigh... Also you misquote yourself above, as you did not comment on the evidence or claim or anything about Nyttend being involved when you endorsed his close. Go look. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To answer the question posed above "So now opposing a move on the basis of guidelines is deserving of sanctions?" IF an editor is citing a guideline to oppose in a way that says or implies that the guideline is mandatory; AND the editor has been told that this is inappropriate, because guidelines are not mandatory; AND the editor continues to do so, then, yes, warnings leading to sanctions are indeed appropriate.  And, no, the subject was not being changed above: MOS hardliners are a serious problem in Wikipedia editing, and are the cause of much tendentious editing and disruption, especially from those who use automated or semi-automated means to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I never use automated nor semi-automated tools, and have made it clear that I never consider following the MOS to be mandatory for anyone. Citing a guideline in opposing a move is pretty routine and uncontroversial. So why all this noise about disruption? Dicklyon (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You asked a question, I answered. I can't help it if the question you asked wasn't the one you intended to ask, or if it was completely rhetorical and you really didn't want an answer at all. The overall answer here is that no one seems interested in sanctioning Nyttend, and I don't blame them in the least, so this whole unnecessary post-close section may as well be closed as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's crystal clear no sanctions are forthcoming for Nyttend. The consensus is unanimous that the RM was closed correctly. There is a slightly less clear consensus that Nyttend was not INVOLVED. Warning of possible sanctions is within an administrator's (and a regular editor's too) discretion. There is nothing actionable here and numerous administrators and editors have explained it. I'm not going to close this again, but this has certainly played out for all but one. I'd ask the next administrator reading this to close with a warning to Dicklyon about poles and horse flesh and aboriginal weapons. This is a waste of too many people's time. John from Idegon (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What admin has argued that it was closed correctly? What admin has looked at User_talk:Dicklyon and stated that that prior threat about application of MOS:JR to a non-bio article does not constitute being WP:INVOLVED.  So far, everyone has avoided the question, rather than looking at it, which would lead to the obvious observation that Nyttend was involved in the substance of the issue that he close a discussion about.  He should not have closed it.  No admin has said he should have closed it, after looking at the involvement (if Deor ever looked at the linked evidence, he never said so or commented on it).  Everyone just avoids the question because they don't want to overturn the move; I'm no longer seeking an overturn of the move, just an acknowledgement that Nyttend was involved and should not have done the close. The opinions are certainly not unanimous at the other discussions, either.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, drop the freaking stick, you're not going to get what you want. Or go open an ArbCom case request and see how far you get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I second BMK's advice. You have to drop the stick already. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  01:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not impressed with User:Nyttend's threat to block an editor because they have been blocked before. This seems to me a fundamental misapplication of our blocking policy and serves as another great example as to why admins should be careful when blocking. It seems I misunderstood the comment. Nyttend was using the previous blocks to justify the length of a new block, not the need for a new block itself. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In response to BMK's plea at AN, I spent 15 minutes of my life that I won't get back reviewing the move discussion, the move review discussion, this section, and the section on Dicklyon's talk page.
 * Here it is: the move discussion was closed properly, as is being borne out at the move review. Nyttend's conduct here, in my opinion, does not meet the bar set by WP:INVOLVED. He is allowed to have a view of the issue based on policy. Did he use a supervote? In my opinion, he did not. As to the language used in the closing, I make strong statements in closing discussions all the time. If you don't like it, sorry, but sometimes we need to get our point across. Could it be phrased better? Maybe, but these MOS war things have to stop and that was Nyttend's intention – to stop them.
 * Now that Dicklyon has had his uninvolved admin review, I strongly urge him to drop the stick and turn away from the Reichstag lest I make a strong statement in a block rationale for disruption. Enough. Katietalk 03:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

IP user 39.51.214.161
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behaviour of this IP user is unacceptable and warrants a punitive block in my view.

Diffs:,.

Definitely WP:NOTHERE. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  16:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  17:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't do punitive blocks, but this is certainly grossly disruptive editing. has blocked the IP and I revdeled the two edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees
User:Carliertwo is a single purpose account who only edits articles connected to Siouxsie Sioux and Siouxsie and the Banshees. This user ensures that all such articles portray their subject in a positive and flattering light, contrary to WP:NPOV. A quick look at any article connected to Siouxsie and the Banshees shows that Wikipedia portrays them as a very highly regarded band that almost nobody has ever said anything negative about, and that all their musical releases have been "hailed" and received "critical acclaim" (usually accompanied by effusive quotes). I believe Carliertwo is responsible for this position, as they editwar to maintain it. My recent interaction with this user has been at Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album), where I removed a statement that a musician "hailed" the album. This was reverted by Carliertwo, so as per WP:BRD I opened a thread on the talk page. As it became apparent that Carliertwo and myself would never agree, I opened an RfC. The result of the RfC was that the statement should not be included in the article. When I removed the statement, Carliertwo reverted me twice (here and here) and substituted the word "namechecked" rather than "hailed". They also left a patronising note on my talkpage in which they sarcastically told me "thanks for your interest" in the article. I am concerned that this user has ownership issues and is preventing Wikipedia from portraying a balanced view of Siouxsie Sioux-related articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like Carliertwo is not respecting the consensus outcome of the RfC and they are edit warring. The comment on your talk page does have the tone of ownership. Perhaps an admin can warn them to conduct themselves more collaboratively.- MrX 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For the hell of it I ran the contribution tool I have on my talk page for the account, and it looks to me like ownership doesn't even begin to describe the contribution count: it is literally all for the band, like some sort of dedicate social media account to ensure that this group is always portrayed in a positive light. Particularly disconcerting in the edit count is the apparent 18 separate edits to the ANI page, 8 to the Admin edit warring page, and the two edits to the AIV page. Given this I would be tempted to do a little more than warn the account to edit more constructively. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been blocked twice due to a Genre warrior as it is explained on my talk with proofs and edits from other users. here. . Another point, one user who began a discussion on the ANI then apologized for doing a mistake see here. Carliertwo (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I know our rules. The consensus said, it is not relevant to use the "hailed" word, but it doesn't say that the use of "Namechecked" can't not be put instead per wp:STICKTOSOURCE. For information, one user wrote here:  "if he were to be used, stick to the source: "In 20xx, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations." None of the users who took part on the discussion, has ever written on any Siouxsie and the Banshee-related articles. Shouldn't the discussion have invited too users of these pages?. Why is it so much annoying to mention that this album was namechecked by another singer. The reason given by this person is; "it is trivial" which is hugely debatable as it is subjective. , could you drop a note here about this witch's hunt and post your point of view. Do you agree with the version written by Ojoroho, above ? ., could you drop a few words above for the people who judge my edits without knowing my work. Carliertwo (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop Wikilawyering. Remove the statement now, please, that is the clear consensus of the RfC. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At the talk, it is written The consensus is against including "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website" in the article. It is not written "The consensus is against including "Tinderbox was namechecked by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson" or The consensus is against including "In 2011, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations" either, the latter seems more apt. Carliertwo (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop Wikilawyering and remove it. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence was removed by, presumably after seeing this thread. In a second edit Serialjoepsycho also removed a section heading, with a reasonable explanation; this second edit was reverted by Carliertwo with the edit summary "this is war", which provides an example of the sort of attitude I'm concerned about. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does he have the consensus to withdraw the name of the legacy section that has been present for years? The answer is no. Is he an administrator? the answer is negative too. I wrote this is another case of war editing 1 then. Nothing justified your report on ANI, this is abusive. This case was only a war editing issue and there is another board for this. Carliertwo (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Your position is that bold editing is not allowed. Well guess what you are wrong. The edit was bold and it was not reckless. I provided a clear justification for the removal. The content in the legacy section presents further reception but no actually legacy or the part of the band or album. Your objection is simply that I had no consensus prior to removal which is simply stonewalling and not a legitimate objection. Attempting to paint two consecutive edits, my only edits to the article at the time, as edit warring is utter nonsense and simply further evidence of edit warring on your part.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been accused to be a spa. Why should comments from long time users of these articles not be useful in this thread?. Sorry, but this thread is gonna be archived, it is gonna be a stain on my work. It was deliberately made on purpose to damage my reputation. I think that one or two comments from people who know my history, would be more than welcome. It is my right. Carliertwo (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is pretty damning evidence of being a SPA when all you do is edit on a specific band to achieve your specific POV. There was no intention to damage your reputation, but reveal your disruptive editing. If you refuse to follow consensus as you have, it is in every well-minded editor's right to report you to ANI.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Refdesk troll has returned... please block.
See. It may already have been attended to by the time someone reads this. Otherwise, please attend to it. Is there any tag I can use to flag such edits in the future? Eliyohub (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was fast! Thanks! I'm no expert on Wikipedia protocols, was reporting it here the right place? Eliyohub (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh... WP:AIV is probably the best place, but this will work in a pinch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

[] []

He was asked not to[], but continues.

Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IP has been given a level 4 warning and I'm not seeing anything since then. But if this continues post here or just ping me. Anymore of this and they will be blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Van Dulsox
I just blocked as a WP:DUCK sock of, itself a likely Scibaby sock. Same focus on tendentious edits to climate change topics, same focus on reverting William Connolley, same edit summaries, same lack of Talk engagement. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Vandal Socks"? Someone is trying to be funny. RolandR (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Thomas Turner
This Thomas Turner guy keeps changing stuff in articles without valid explanation as to why he's doing it, going against what is written in the sources. I'd scrutinize his actions if I were you. Take a look at these contributions of his. Classicalfan626 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which ones? And what is wrong with them? Is it vandalism? If so, did you warn the editor and report them at WP:AIV? Sorry, but this noticeboard is usually the last resort, and you really need to be more specific. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, the sources have him born in Brooklyn . The other editor was correct. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quick update, for the record: Classicalfan626 left a very courteous note on my talk page and on Thomas Turner's, which I appreciate. Thank you for closing this, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User:DangerousJXD
I suspect that User:DangerousJXD has been hacked. Most of his contributions in the past 24 hours are nonsense edits without any edit summaries, unlike his usual practice where he always leaves a summary for every of his edits. Also, his entire user page has recently been replaced with just one sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:6C29:F100:4C7F:68A4:757C:8FDD (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not true at all. This is obviously not true. There's nothing to this. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * how are you so confident of this? the behavioural pattern seems to have changed drastically over the past 24 hours. The edit summary of "..." has been used 38 times in the past 24 hours, but, not in a single of the past 500 edits before that. DangerousJXD does leave short edit summarie, but, not nothing or nothing useful. On top of that, a random blanking of their own page. I do find this strange. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters; the claim of nonsense edits is wrong: all of the recent edits I reviewed were productive. All of the edits with the summary (...) that I looked at were edits where they removed commented out links to images which had been deleted, such as and . That looks more like bot work than a hacked account. Then there are edits like  and  which have edit summaries that accurately describe the changes.Going back a bit further (getting close to the 24 hour mark) we have edits like  which is just an unremarkable edit. Or moving to a more recent edit, there's  which is clearly anti-vandalism.
 * Now, I agree that a case could be made by someone who knows this editor that they're editing outside their usual areas, using the edit summaries differently than usual, taking the opposite side of issues they've made their thoughts clear on in the past. But none of that was brought up here. Instead, the editor was accused of not using edit summaries, when literally every edit had something as an edit summary, and the enigmatic summaries were for edits which are pretty self-explanatory. The editor was accused of making nonsense edits, which is patently untrue. The person using this account is clearly editing productively. I'm open to arguments that it's a different person, but I see absolutely no evidence of that presented here. Just false claims.
 * The simplest explanation is that this editor is using a new bot, or the editor has simply decided to get into some janitorial work. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response (I just realized my ping was wrong). Fair enough, I agree, the edits are fine themselves. Nothing unusual in them, not to the naked eye at least. Either way a passing admin should probs just close this as inactionable. Since as you say, the evidence that this is another person is not sufficiently there and the OP is erroneous in description. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my first comment wasn't very elucidating, sorry. Also, I probably should have linked to my standard disclaimer in it to make it clear I wasn't trying to snap at the IP. I get that something looks odd here. It's just that once you look a bit closer, the oddness disappears entirely. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I just resort to the vernacular pro tempore and point out this is precisely what the ******* problem is here. ANI is a forum of last resort, not first. Someone makes a few different edits to normal and we default to here? Why not just ******* ask them, FFS. This is really unbelievable.  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  14:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything suspicious here. The recent contributions without summaries are clearly not nonsense (did anybody actually check them before commenting?) They are removing infobox captions for images that have been deleted. And the latest edits are back to having summaries. Also, DangerousJXD has clearly said on his user page why it has been blanked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did, the edits themselves are not odd, it's the edit summary that is weird to me. I went through contribs back 1200 edits before finding a single instance of just "...", though I found hundreds of "fix", "revert", "remove", etc. Eh, coincidence I guess. As for blanking their talk page, the explanation I guess is fair enough. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin tools
I wish to report that Umair Aj (talk) is abusing his user privileges.

The user has repeatedly changed the order of the page Honorific nicknames in popular music to reflect his personal opinion. The user disrupted the order of thumbnail images in that page to suit his personal preferences and tastes, in this case, his preferred musical artist.

When I pointed this out to the user AND reversed his changes, he threatened me with a ban on my talk page. If this user is actually a Wikipedia Administrator, then this is clearly a very serious abuse of his privileges as per WP:ADMIN and WP:COI. If the user is not an Administrator, then he is impersonating one which is a clear case of fraud and corruption. Intervention urgently required. Thanks DanJazzy (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Umair Aj is not an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nor do I see where they impersonated one. Just looks like a normal edit warring template to me. Capeo (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This exchange is what is being referred to. Unless I missed something, Umair Aj never claimed to be an admin. They left a warning saying "you may be blocked" for edit warring. The Moose  23:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like both of them are in a slow-motion edit war. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The use of the "ban template" and the threats clearly indicate the user was attempting to use a fraudulent authority of an administrator to have his way.DanJazzy (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry - that is a standard template that Twinkle generates. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Have I mentioned lately that I hate it when someone who is actively edit warring places an edit warring template on the other person's talk page? I'll revert the article to the status quo ante (if it isn't there already), and then they can discuss it on the talk page. I've notified Umair Aj about this, by the way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why I added a similar template to 's page. It's been deleted though, along with your notification of this discussion. Oh well. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll just leave it at the current state since it was first added in what DanJazzy thinks is the wrong place, so status quo ante doesn't really apply. Guys, use the talk page to discuss.  You're both edit warring.  (And FYI, I think DanJazzy is probably right about the content issue, but wrong about the template impersonating an admin). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam (talk) you've been most helpful. To me, this is not even about the article, which is of minor importance TBH. It's about the integrity of the process i.e. the principle of it. As you can see from u|Exemplo347's observation above, the user is engaging in some "sharp"practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJazzy (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This looks to me like a minor content dispute, and the other user may have posted that template as a "bluff". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You edit warred and got an edit warring warning. There's nothing unusual about this, and it's not the first time you've been warned for edit warring, so I'd have thought you'd be familiar with it. If you're going to continue edit warring, you will continue to be warned about it, so just move on from this and continue with dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An edit war (4 or 5 reverts in 24 hours, blockworthy for both editors) over where to place a name in an alphabetical list. I'm sure I've seen dumber edit wars here, but I don't recall when. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved party here: I say that this is a content dispute between two users. What I suggest is before either one decides to make another edit, that they discuss it on the talk page and come to a consensus on how the article should be layed out. This way nobody is accusing the other of POV pushing. Is that a fair suggestion? Eric Ramus Ground me here 02:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor is "biting" IP's
User:Tarage has been biting 110.146.179.201 and other IP editors. Especially 110.146.179.201. Tarage has been reverting his question to him about who is allowed on his talk page. Then 110.146.179.201 kept restoring it back and telling Tarage that he needs to answer it before he undoes it, however undoes it yet again before answering it. The altercation kept going on after that and 110.146.179.201 kept threatening to get someone to report Tarage, and that someone would be me. Then Tarage reverted it yet again and asked for him to be reported.

Diffs of revertions:
 * by 110.146.179.201
 * by Tarage
 * by 110.146.179.201: You didn't answer my question.
 * by Tarage: Stop posting on my talk page.
 * by 110.146.179.201: I am asking you a question. Do not remove this until you answer it or I will get someone to report you for "biting" newcomers.
 * by Tarage: Report me. That will get more eyes on my talk page and a quicker lockdown.

Surprisingly, 110.146.179.201 is now 31 hour blocked. He is suspected of block evasion, but I find it highly unlikely. 58.164.22.225 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you need to notify Tarage about this ANI case. Also, a user has "ownership" on their own talk page and is free to delete almost everything from their page. Based on the diffs provided, the IP was vandalizing the page, and was told not to post anymore. I see no actionable event here. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have been facing vandalism on my talk page from various IP editors. As a result I've had to have my talk page protected twice. I'm not sure what this IP editor's beef is with me, but I have absolutely no desire to continue this conversation, and I am glad that it was brought to a swift close. Hopefully I will have less vandalism now. --Tarage (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should consider having your talk page protected indef. 58.164.22.225 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should get ranged blocked for harassment. --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems uncalled for. I don't see any interaction between you and this IP outside of this thread. What range would one even block? Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is look at my talk page to see the history of harassment over the last few days. Between spam messages and this 'report' by the 'uninvolved IP' who just happens to be complaining about the same thing the blocked IP was complaining about, it's clear that someone has a grudge against me. Either way, this needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Tarage here. There has been disruption since end of December with IPs and new users mounting to harrasment by edit warring. I don't think a range block would help. I think a protection is the only way to stop this. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia677
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


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


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


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


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


 * It all started in November when I added a category to an article, then Magnolia677 reverted it with the edit summary "removing unsourced content" then I reverted their revertion by saying that categories don't need sources. The discussion for that can be found on my talk page here . I believe that was the starting point in our ongoing feud. After the discussion, they reverted many of my category additions then I reverted back by adding sources. After that, the user began wikihounding me by constantly appearing in discussions involving myself, such as the draft rejections here and telling me that I shouldn't remove headers on my talk page here. Later on, they began templating me about my edits that we have previously discussed. This was my edit on Firebeatz and them templating me. This was my edit on Steve Aoki and this is them templating me. I responded back by saying that doesn't need a source because Steve Aoki is a member of 3 Are Legend and by policies that would be enough for inclusion as associated acts. Just recently they started intervening in my discussions such as these, "Removing of lead artists" and "Godfather of EDM". - The   Magnificentist  14:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Categories always require a source/reference. Almost all of them are usually referenced in the articles already. A music producer will have a source somewhere saying he is a producer etc. Merely being listed in the infobox is not a reference. As information in the infobox *also* requires a reference in the article. Again in most cases already existing sources/refs support this so it is not a problem. There is an issue with infobox's being populated with unsourced information, however if there is information in the infobox that is not supported in the article with a reference/source, it should be removed (on a living person's biography). This may not have been explained particularly well to you in the past. In short, dont solely trust what is in the infobox. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

TheMagnificentist: you are not being hounded, your edits are being scrutinized closely because of your history of misconduct on Wikimedia projects. You are indefblocked at Wikimedia Commons, and you had a very narrow escape from the same fate here (User talk:TheMagnificentist/Archive 1). Let me be clear, those who reviewed your unblock request treated you exceptionally kindly - there are many here (myself included) who would not have unblocked you with your history of sockpuppeting and other inappropriate editing. I strongly suggest that you learn to work with Magnolia and accept the fact that they are trying to keep you on the straight and narrow. You are on your very last chance on this project and wasting everyone's time with this sort of complaint is not the sort of thing you should be doing. Learn our policies (if you have reliable sources for your edits, people won't challenge them), make constructive edits and don't cause trouble. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TheMagnificentist - My first thought, in looking over this filing and the history of sockpuppetry, is to propose a boomerang site ban. It is clear that other editors are more tolerant than I am.  I would however like to know what your explanation is for the sockpuppetry.  Sockpuppetry is, in my opinion, a perfectly good reason to look with very careful scrutiny at the conduct of another editor.  I haven't looked at the details of the content dispute about unsourced and sourced material.  However, can you please explain why we should give you more rope after a history of sockpuppetry?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You make an important point. But it cuts both ways. Note this clause which you quote: This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. If it turns out that they are motivated instead by a desire to protect the wiki from your repeated failure to comply with policies and guidelines, then the fact that this causes you distress doesn't make it hounding, and they deserve a barnstar not a block. That's what I mean by self-inflicted. Please consider carefully. Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that we have given user:TheMagnificentist a more than fair hearing, that they have failed completely to justify their complaint, and that it therefore counts as disruption (possibly unintentional). If they do not promptly withdraw it, I would support a boomerang block (at least). Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that the OP filed a self-nom RfA on January 1 which was SNOW-closed. I only mention this as a further example of a significant lack of WP:CLUE. I'm not sure if a boomerang is appropriate here, but I am sure that this complaint needs to be closed without action against Magnolia677. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, did ask about this at WP:THQ so perhaps the reason this ANI discussion was opened had to do with my response. I did try word my post as neutrally as possible, but maybe I could've done a better job in hindsight. FWIW, I think it's a pretty hard to explain to someone who really feels they are being "harassed" that they aren't based upon Wikipedia's definition of the term. Like "notability", it seems hard for some editors to not apply the real world definitions of terms such as "harassment", "hounding", "bullying", etc. to their Wikipedia disputes. When I made my Teahouse post, I thought that this might simply be the case of one editor monitoring another edits described in WP:HA, but I didn't think the Teahouse was the best place to try and discuss such a thing in detail. I also wasn't aware that TheMagnificentist was being mentored by ; otherwise, I would've recommended that the issue be discussed with Anachronist.
 * FWIW, I too do not feel any action needs to be taken against, but I am not sure what should be done in the case of TheMagnificentist. A block intended to punish them would be inappropriate, but at the same time the conditions laid out by in the aforementioned unblock request referred to above by  were clearly agreed to by TheMagnificentist. Ideally, it think it would be appropriate to get some input from Anacnronist, but he currently seems to be on a Wikibreak. Maybe one last chance should be given to TheMagnificentist per WP:ROPE and maybe they should be encouraged to expand their Wikipedia horizons a little bit by avoiding the music-related articles where they seem to be running into trouble and working on other stuff. Going around doing a bit of WP:GNOME stuff on other articles might give them a better perspective on collaborative editing and on how there are other ways in which an editor can be here. Anyway, just my two cents on the matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Very well put. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering my past involvement with both editors, I'm afraid I am quite sceptic about the ability of TheMagnificentist to adhere to the specific guidelines outlined above. Sourcing has been a specific issue and while there have been some good contributions, the behaviour at WP:AfD demonstrates this (see here). I noticed the editor has put a 'retired' tag on his page. Karst (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition, the editor has had one violation of his 1RR that the above editors decided to let slide (see here). Personally I agreed with that decision, but that was described as a last chance. Karst (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2017 (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 Wikipedia policy. We both violated the 3RR rule, but there has been no recent Personal Attack against your persona. I did go over the top last march, I concede. Nothing over the past couple of days merits me being discussing this on ANI.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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


 * 1) With due respect, I am not exactly a user with a "very short" record in EN WP.
 * 2) Neither Iñaki LL nor Kahastok know "my views" as I haven't ever disclosed my views here.
 * 3) Have I been formally accused of being a sockpuppet?
 * --Asqueladd (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to make a few points, maybe this isn't the case in Spanish (and some of the diffs are, so I can't really comment on those), but in English, Libel is a legal term, and accusing someone of making libelous accusations may very well be construed as a legal threat. That's likely not the intention, but it's a good idea to avoid it. The same goes for accusing someone of defamation, which is also a term of legal consequence in English.
 * When it comes to calling something terrorism there is actually official guidance on that, and a redirect from WP:TERRORIST to guide you there. Furthermore, accusing someone of sock puppetry, especially repeatedly and without evidence, may be construed as a personal attack in its own right.
 * So given that no one involved appears to be 100% on their best behavior, has anyone actually tried any of the steps in the dispute resolution process? Timothy Joseph Wood  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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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. Timothy Joseph Wood  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 Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not therapy; if you are not able to edit an article without severe emotional stress, may I suggest that it might be better not to edit it at all?


 * You single out Iñaki's use of "campaigner". Do you condemn Asilah when he makes exactly the same allegation against others? Kahastok talk 17:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have singled nobody as "campaigner" regarding the Basque Country yet. Iñaki did 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, 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" [sic] other than your refractary dismissal of sources as "the official version" from the "Sp Gvt" per you "own experience" [sic] Surprising, given you have self-righteously (again) proclaimed no user is "deciding absolutely anything on POV".--Asqueladd (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bla-bla-bla, I can hear your music, not your lyrics. The history is there for anyone to see, so in your favour or mine anyone can see it. Good night Iñaki LL (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Refractary indeed. Your honour, I rest my case.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


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


 * E What the hell?? Someone has hacked my account. When was that edit made. Was it you??? Asilah1981 (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


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

I have only read the surface of this discussion but as I have been mentioned I have something to add. This post seems to follow on long and lasting disagreements between Asilah1981 (talk) and Iñaki LL (talk). Whatever is the quarrel I am not interested about, but in defense of Asilah1981 I have to point out that editor Iñaki LL (talk) has a long term history of launching sockpuppeting investigations based on fake facts and unsupported speculations on anyone who dares to disagree with him. Not only that, but in my case he even created an anonymous account to add modifications in a page that was subject of controversy and tried to make them pass as if they were made by me, trying to give further fuel to his quarreling. Pablo Alonso (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but your personal edit warring and WP:GRUDGE against Iñaki LL are irrelevant to a thread about two constructive, experienced editors at loggerheads with each other. The are a lot of socks traipsing around Wikipedia, and it does not reflect badly on an editor for reporting them. A lot of us don't bother out of laziness and chose to waiting around until they get themselves blocked again for the same behaviour that got 'em blocked in the first place, or for them to give up. Every editor handles things their own way. I'm not particularly impressed with how you've handled yourself with the few edits you've made, but I'm not about to step into a thread about you and use it to create a demon of you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * You are equally entitled to blank pieces of your talk page, as you did deleting my entries. On the other hand, what is exactly the thread you say it was altered? I quick look to your history of quarreling with a long list of editors is revealing enough, so no need to elaborate. It is already the time for you to stop behaving like a bully and like the sheriff of Wikipedia, you don´t own this site. Pablo Alonso (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. Pablo Alonso (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.


 * 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)


 * 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, . 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 Wikipedia as a whole. The fact that he does not even recognise that it is a personal attack to call someone racist, or a terrorist apologist, suggests strongly that he cannot. Kahastok talk 21:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kahastok for bringing this thread back to track, the basic fact for which I started this. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Anyways, I really am off for a few days, as I think you should all. Wikipedia is fun and fascinating but, for most of us, now is the holiday season and we should all wind down a bit.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, going on vacation... What is this latest rant about? How the hell is this editor entitled to say what I am or what I am not politically, when the situation in Spain for certain political views is of criminalization, especially for the Basque Country and Catalonia? How do you dare? How do you dare??? Still learnt nothing? Absolutely nothing? Why this urge to obstrazise and alienate editors??? And with extremely sensitive vocabulary??? I could have classified you long ago many things, and very clearly so, still I haven't out of civility WP:CIVILITY I am more convinced now than ever that you are unable to cooperate in the WP. Indeed you are behaving like Pablo.alonso. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


 * Hi, . 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 (who has acknowledged that he would be prepared to take on that role).  and, 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)


 * 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:
 * Get all your (supposed) evidences and orchestrate another (akelarre) case against me.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I don't have any control over the blocking issue, and this thread has been all but abandoned. will make contact with  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 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 and this is not an "either, or" situation. I would like this mentoring if agreed (which you have) to be in some sense a seperate development. I genuinely think it would help you. A lot of this appears to be in your interactions, where you have no neutral individual to check the implications of things said, either by you or to you, before over hastily and sometimes unwisely replying. That is not just you, as far as I can read from the monster thread above, but at least we can help chill your behaviour. Frankly I would like to get to the stage where you can communicate usefully and productively with all the posters above. Irondome (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Irondome Agreed. I have two long term fronts open: Gibraltar-related and with Inaki, the latter being the minor of the two, Inaki having more beef with me than I do with him. Besides that my interactions on Wikipedia tend to be quite placid. To be fair both these fronts were open long before I was involved, so it would perhaps be wrong to consider me a source of conflict as such. I tend to go ballistic only where I perceive (or I have no option but to conclude that) discussions are not being held in good faith. This may explain the widely diverging opinions on the nature of my contribution to the wikipedia project. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Picking up from '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 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 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)
 * 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)
 * that means a hell of a lot to me, take my word for it. Both you and 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  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, 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 as s/he has responded in this discussion, plus  and  who may not be available at this time in order that they are aware of mentoring having been put in place. I'll finish up adding to this thread and wish everyone an early Happy New Year should I not encounter you prior that change in dates. Uff, 2017. Space-age stuff when I was growing up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, remember Blade Runner was set in 2019, so science had better get a move on. Still can't get an android in PC World. Bugger. Irondome (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with whatever resolution was come up with, as the distance from this ping to the "edit" link was far too far for me to concern myself with. Whether Asilah makes strides in not being so hostile or not, or on other articles I don't frequent, I hope for the best. I merely, on request, exchanged one remembered notable (-ly frustrating) interaction with the user in question and have no lingering issues or concerns. JesseRafe (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for your comments and bringing this unpleasent incident to a close and taking notice of the dimension of the issue. Also, as Iryna Harpy has pointed, this is an alternative to a block as a result of the editor's dysfunctional attitude to the purposes of WP, otherwise an incremental block or similar would be expected per consistency with precedents. As pointed by Wee Curry Monster, personally I am not at all confident he will improve his ways, since in that case he would just be a different, brand-new Asilah1981, but I fully appreciate Irondome's offer to mentor him, let's hope for the best. Luckily this incident is coming to a close, happy new year to everyone Iñaki LL (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Irondome Yes, well I'm not sure how I'm meant to react here. I guess silence would be the wiser option. I do find you admiring WCM for academic reasons slightly worrying considering the | surreal historical innacuracies he / Kahastok have defended in the recent past. Spending weeks on Wikipedia pushing (to the death) a position equivalent to Mexico winning the American War of Independence is, to say the least, symptomatic of there being some issue requiring attention, if only limited to this group of related articles. Your experience with him maybe different to ours. I hope mentorship will draw attention (or perhaps limit) such crazy exchanges, even if by proxy. The more attention is drawn to these group of articles the better. Lack of attention is what has allowed for these ludicrous situations to arise in the first place. Anyways, looking forward. Asilah1981 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Any question of bias towards any party is unfounded. All here show excellent intellect and fluency, and of course an ability to use sources adroitly. The nub of the issue is as always interpretation and an NPOV approach to sources. Hopefully these pre-requisites to any work here can be achieved through close discussion between parties with the help of a non-involved colleague. I have good relations with many editors, some of whom have radically different POV's on certain issues to myself. That should not be an impediment to good working relations i.m.o, although sometimes strong disagreements can arise. That's par for the course. The trick is to keep it civilised. I hope to get to know you better also, 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 continuum is not that I disagree on the opinions of these 2 editors (I disagree with 99% of the world on their opinions). The issue is that, my review of their 8 years of edits and interactions on Gibraltar-related talk pages and my own extensive interactions with them during 2016 have led me to the conclusion that (within the scope of Gibraltar related articles) they do not edit/discuss in good faith. WCM even has the unique skill of | launching an RfC in bad faith, only this month. Note this is not something I will say lightly about anyone. Not about Inaki, who started this ANI, not about pretty much anyone else I have interacted with on Wikipedia. Too many times I have approached these two editors seeking to build bridges or mend fences - every single time responded with silence or outright hostility. I just hope your expectations from mentorship do not include further grovelling to editors who I have witnessed first hand do not respond well to civility or attempts at reconciliation.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not a great start . "Grovelling" is seriously off-base, and actually rather a grotesque choice of wording. I "grovel" to no one, either here or in real life. I give credit where credit is due, no more, no less. The post above is unfortunately phrased, lets just say that. You appear to be unable to be bigger than your baser instincts, and perhaps lash out without thinking. You will have to make renewed attempts to reach out to the other parties, as part of the mentoring. And no, it would not be perceived as "grovelling", but honestly facing up to your behavioural glitches, which you yourself admit to. Irondome (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously concerned that you haven't grasped the fundamentals of why this report was opened, and why you were offered mentorship as an alternative to being blocked. The last couple of comments you've left seem to indicate that you are labouring under the illusion that mentorship is a method of better arming yourself with policies and guidelines in order to launch a renewed assault, and have no interest in understanding that you have displayed unacceptable behaviour... and that Simon is some sort of soft touch. I hope I'm wrong about this uncomfortable impression that you're only paying lip service to the process and wasting quite a number of editors' time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. Note that in the latest block when asked by Drmies to some kind of apology, he replied with 'I will have to change my strategy' which does not sound very reassuring. Plus in his own words, he was off for a break, right? Well, he is still around adding personal thoughts. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone, Irondome Iryna Harpy Kahastok (whomever else this may concern) I should call to get this episode over and done with, open for too long a time, stating the outcome of it, attempted monitoring period ultimately overridden by indefinitely block. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry . is now undergoing a 3 month mentoring period under my guidance. Due to the holidays, a set of firm proposals that Asilah will unconditionally follow will be posted on my T/P in the coming hours. I have had experience of this and A. realises I am deadly serious on this and the regidity of the terms. I should expect a closing admin to close this wretched thread with the understanding that A. is now under mentoring, and that any breaches will involve escalating admin action. Irondome (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me bring the latest evidence, the log is all too clear. As much as I appreciate your disposition to find a way out for this case, there are just recurrent infringements piling up one after the other against the editor, with the latest one being an indefinite block. Not that I am impressed by his changes of mood, which makes actually his continuation in the WP all the more disquieting, but check his talk page to see how happily he takes his punishment(s), looks like a trip to the countryside for a child. What is going on? What is going on? Iñaki LL (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Close? User:Asilah1981 was indefinitely blocked by User:Boing! said Zebedee on 31 December and is still blocked. Though it's unclear if the reasons for the block are the same as the issues raised above, there is no reason to keep the thread open longer. If Boing's block of Asilah1981 is lifted for some reason, and the problems reported here continue, I suggest that anyone could open a new ANI thread and link to this one. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree this should be closed now. Asilah1981 is blocked, Drmies is going to speak by email too, and if there is an unblock then it will be under the watching eyes of Irondome, Drmies, and me. I won't close it myself as I issued the block, but I think any uninvolved editor could safely do so now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

any reason why my comment on your talk page was deleted? And how are references of Adele calling herself 'proud to be British' on the Brit Awards weak? Does she have to edit her Wikipedia account herself to make it stronger? To be proud of something you must first identify it, this 'it' is her feeling a great pleasure of the fact that she is British. Could you please tell me what else she would need to say to make it less tenuous? Are references from the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Vogue, Daily Mail weak references? Very confused. Erzan (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleting comments from one's own talk page is allowed. And she was born in, and lives in, England. Hence, she's English. And hence also British, by definition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What's up, Doc? that goes against Wikipedia guidelines that explains edits regarding a person's biography should respect their own self-identification.Erzan (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Erzan, if you're referring to WP:BLPCAT note the limited application: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question..." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 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  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  04:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ezran has now created a thread at WP:DRN, which I personally think was opened way too soon. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  04:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear Ezran explain how someone could be English and not be British. And unless she has a corresponding statement saying she's ashamed to be English, then this is pointless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the logic either. Isn't English the official term used anyways? Someone would have an English passport and not a Bristish passport, no? Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  05:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * British passport, so nope, not an English passport. Presumably because Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of Britain and would have the same passport as an English man. For that matter, you can be British without being English, I just don't know that it is possible for it to be the other way around. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the so-called "British" passport is actually issued by the UK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The distinction between GB and UK being Northern Ireland? since I included it within the context of the "British" passport figuring that Northern Ireland(ers) would have the same passport as well, as I am aware it's UK of GB and NI in acronymified form. Hence, the British passport actually extends a little beyond Britain in this sense. I think that is what you're referring to. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I take "British" to be an abbreviation, although "UK" would be more accurate. The basic problem with this edit war is that trying to claim she "identifies" as British implies she doesn't identify as "English", and there's no evidence for that. In fact, during her "car pool karaoke" with James Corden, it was raining, and she said, "Your viewers will think England is rubbish!" Note she said "England", not "Britain", and certainly it rains a lot throughout the UK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note she refers to being English here (as well as being descended from a whole bunch of other nationalities) which kind of contradicts what she said at the BRIT Awards. As I've said previously somewhere else, I really don't care which one we use, but I do think we should have some kind of consensus on the matter because it does lead to disruption. This is Paul (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also the matter of context. She was talking about "waving our flag" and so on. Then Corden was forced to interrupt her before she could say anything else. So drawing conclusions about her self-identity from that one comment is called "original synthesis". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If an American said they were from California but also said they are a 'proud American'. Would it not be sensible to put American? After all they have an American passport, have legal American citizenship and also stated they are proud of their national identity. Should the same logic not apply to Adele? she has a UK passport, a British national, has said she is proud of her British identity and has been described as British by plenty of sources. Her being from England is stated in her birthplace. Her being British and proud of it could at least be demonstrated by editing her summary intro as 'British' with a reference to her speech at the Brit Award? Also can a volunteer please confirm or deny, that the suggestion that the BBC, Guardian or Telegraph make 'weak' sources? thank you. Erzan (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They are sources for her having made that statement. They are insufficient for proving that she self-identifies as British rather than English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So she has a British passport, a legal British citizen, plenty of credible sources describe as British, she is proud to be British according to the sources and her being from England is already stated in the article. So what is the matter with changing the intro from English to British? She has made a positive claim to her self identity, waiting to acknowledge that in case she claims to be proud of being a,b,c means you cannot edit someone being American in case they say they are proud to be a Black American. Is that not inconsistent? Also can someone please confirm or deny, that the sources used like the BBC, Guardian and the Telegraph are strong? Because that was one of reasons for this dispute to even occur. Thank you. Erzan (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that says she "self-identifies" as British rather than English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a weak argument. There is no such thing as Black American. Black is a race and American is a nationality. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  17:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And comparing "American" to "British" is a weak argument. Crabapples and oranges. And a good portion of this should be moved back to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Being Black (or African) American is a thing and that is why pages like Barack Obama have in his summary that she is the first Black American. It's an identity, there's literally a massive article on wikipedia about Black Americans. Yes being American is also an identity too, which also in Obama's summary. Look at this way, if a previously unknown celeb who came out as Transgender on stage and declared 'I am proud to be Male". Are you seriously suggesting to wait for them to confirm or deny they were not also proud of being once sexually a Female? because that is what the logic implies. Erzan (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, black is a race. African American is an ethnic group. They are those who have American nationality with African ancestry, predominantly black Africans. We don't count white Europeans as a nationality or citizenship because white is a race. European is just a term for those belonging to Europe. I think you have yourself confused. I agree with Bugs. Further discussion should be on the article talk page. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  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?  E Eng  17:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A donut to be more accurate. He was a donut. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, not that old chestnut.  E Eng  13:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be sure: see here, here, here, and here, among many other citations, for confirmation that Kennedy said exactly what he meant to say, and that, indeed, there was no other concise way to phrase it to convey the connotations of JFK's message to the citizens of Berlin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I already knew all of that, though I was under the impression he could omit the "ein" and just say Ich bin Berliner. I just couldn't resist the opportunity. Even my old German teacher used to make the same joke. Bist du ein Berliner BMK? Ich komme aus Augsburg und wohne in Australien. I know only very limited German so I hope that's all correct. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

But I'd like to invite User:This is Paul to rephrase the question they want ANI to answer, trying not to judge one way or another whether Adele is British (or not), either here or (again) on my talk page if they'd prefer. Andrewa (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to protest your bland exclusion of persons with only one eye from the population of potential observers. Very callous of you.  E Eng  17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've said previously, I'm not bothered whether we say Adele is English or British, but the problem with the British v Her constituent countries debate is that it is disruptive because someone changes it from one to the other out of personal preference, then someone else does the opposite at some later date because it's their personal preference. This kind of thing happens across a lot of articles concerning people from the UK, and I raised the matter at the helpdesk in this particular case as it had previously been debated on the talk page with a consensus being reached, and Erzan seemed unwilling to engage in further discussion about the topic. I was advised to come here, which is what I did. Andrew, not sure how you want me to rephrase the question so perhaps you could elaborate a little. This is Paul (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * You mention a previous consensus, but again didn't link to it. Do you mean at Talk:Adele/Archive 2 where the two of you express your different opinions, or is it one of the subsequent relevant sections from Talk:Adele/Archive 3? Or somewhere else? Andrewa (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, my first attempt at discussing this can be found in this thread which I started in May 2016, and was archived on 27 December, and initiated by edits such as this and this (evidently it had been an issue before I became involved). The outcome of that discussion seems to be 'let's stick with the status quo', and I think it was me who inserted a hidden note in the article stressing that the nationality should not be changed without first gaining consensus from others. Erzan is an occasional editor, but has returned from time to time to periodically continue to make the change (see here for example from June 2016 and thes most recent ones from December here, here and here). Attempts to discuss this with Erzan have failed (see here for example; there's also an allegation of 'making threats' in my talk page archives here). I also drawer your attention to the following series edits from another article (here and here), which I believe demonstrate a latent tendentiousness. My comments here were borne out of frustration over this. It wastes everybody's time when we could be getting on with something more constructive. This is Paul (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have to say it, but if you really need all of these links to back up your claim of consensus, I have to wonder whether the claim is completely bogus. Is there one where you think consensus is clear? Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If this question is for me, I did say the outcome of the particular discussion I started was 'let's stick with the status quo'. I guess a more accurate description might have been 'we really can't decide'. In truth there's no consensus for one above the other. My argument is changing these things just for the sake of it is pointless. I've lost count of the number of arguments in BLPs over, for example, Scottish versus British. Someone's always going to disagree with whatever is says in such cases. As I stated at the beginning of this thread that I tend to revert to whatever the text originally said unless there's a very good argument to change it. Providing a bunch of links where someone makes a vague comment isn't enough. Maybe we need some kind of policy on this topic, as otherwise this issue will present itself again in other articles. This is Paul (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Meatpuppet incident at Albert Cashier
Recently I came across a dispute at Albert Cashier between Roscelese, a long time Wikipedia editor, and Lgbt.history.ig, an editor who created an account only quite recently. The dispute concerns whether the subject of the article should be referred to as a woman who dressed as a man or as a "transman", and some edit warring between Roscelese and Lgbt.history.ig took place over this issue. I stated on the article's talk page that I agreed with Roscelese's view, and I reverted the article to the version prior to the edit war. My edit was then reverted by Mlr78731, a brand new account started today that has so far made no other edits. This is disturbing because Lgbt.history.ig had made comments on the talk page about getting people who agree with their views to support them at the article: "I am the creator and co-administrator of @lgbt_history, an Instagram account with just under 60,000 followers; if Cashier is misgendered on Wikipedia again, I will make sure that our followers are made aware of your efforts at queer erasure and let them know how to remedy it." Based on that comment, and on the appearance of a brand new account supporting Lgbt.history.ig, it would appear that a serious violation of WP:MEATPUPPETRY has occurred and that administrator intervention is required. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, Mlr78731 is definitely a puppet made of either fabric or meat, but I left a talkpage warning earlier, and you pointed Lgbt.history.ig to the relevant policies on the article talkpage - I'm not sure this needs to be an ANI case unless the account continues editing or more puppets appear. It might happen, given Lgbt.history.ig's comments, but this seems premature. Also, dude, the scarequotes are uncalled-for and rude. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked indef and Lgbt.history.ig blocked 1 week by for abusing multiple accounts --  samtar talk or stalk 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * is ✅ from . I've blocked the sock account indefinitely and the master one week. If, based on discussion here, there is consensus that the block needs to be modified please go ahead and make any changes without need of notifying me.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are we so easy on sockmasters? This is about the worst thing someone can do. Why isn't the block six months? A year? Indefinite until they humbly demonstrate an understanding of what they've done?  E Eng  23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Frankly, and only 1/3 seriously, if it were up to me I'd issue an indef simply for using a stupid term like queer erasure. Give me a break.
 * Having used sockpuppets myself in the past, and having been given a second chance by Bbb23, who blocked me for only a month for sockpuppetry when he could instead have blocked me indefinitely had he wished to, I think it is reasonable that Lgbt.history.ig should be given a second chance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88 ( 聖やや ) here. Don't ask. I agree with FKC in general here (I too have "socked" in the past, although under very specific circumstances). That said, if there is any hint that Lgbt.history.ig doesn't recognize that what they did was wrong or denies that the account was them, their block should be extended. 106.171.73.133 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A further question is why (at least) two seasoned editors cannot expend the same effort they spent on sourcing a single word in the lede to sourcing the rest of the article. Can anyone provide any good reason why ~half of it should not be removed as unsourced material...? O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  07:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be better to discuss this issue at the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Half my question at least was regarding behaviour, and that is firmly within the purview of this board. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  09:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As a matter of policy, as it is not a BLP - unsourced material is not due to be removed straight away as sources may be found (in a BLP it would be removed until sources were presented) unless it is controversial or unlikely in some way. It could be removed, but in many cases that is counter productive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely- I think it's called- imaginatively!- WP:BDP.  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  18:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One-hundred-and-one years ago is not *recently dead". --Calton | Talk 02:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Meatpuppets now being recruited on tumblr
http://lgbt-history-archive.tumblr.com/post/155182034892/recently-we-did-a-post-on-albert-cashier-a-civil If actual semiprotection is premature, can some admin keep an eye on the article?  E Eng  00:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Also, who came up with a stupid name like tumblr, anyway?
 * We've had at least one meat puppet editing the article in coordination with Lgbt.history.ig now: . LeGarde-Chiourme insisted on the talk page that he was unaware of the issue at hand and that his edit was just incidental, but...: . <font color="#19a0fd">S <font color="#66c0fd">n <font color="#99d5fe">o <font color="#b2dffe">w  <font color="#d4143a">let's rap 21:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's always a hoot the way these types think no one will notice what they're up to.  E Eng  15:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Has this been going on longer than we think? About a month before lgbt.history showed up, there was Special:Contributions/Queerasarainbow and Special:Contributions/LeGarde-Chiourme is another super-fishy new account (although not technically an SPA, it was clearly created by either lgbt.history or someone they contacted off-wiki). 106.171.73.133 (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch. LeGarde-Chiorume is a known meatpuppet in this situation (technically they had a pre-existing French Wikipedia account, but they came to this project in response to Lgbt.history's general social media meat puppetry call; I've saved a copy of a dialogue in which they discuss these activities on tumblr, though Lgbt.history has now deleted the initial post).


 * I had not seen Queerasarainbow's edit before now, but I decided to see if the name matched a named account on tumblr, and sure enough: . I think you're probably correct; it does seem as if this is not the first time that Lgbt.history has coordinated meat puppets to support their view, and I dare say at this point that there are probably additional socks as well.  It's worth noting also that Lgbt.history has now deleted the 'call to arms' tumblr post, so I suspect they have grown wise to discussing this kind of behaviour out in the open, so to speak, and that any further coordination will be conducted through private/closed group channels on social media. <font color="#19a0fd">S <font color="#66c0fd">n <font color="#99d5fe">o <font color="#b2dffe">w  <font color="#d4143a">let's rap 20:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, having noted now that all three of these users have edited only this one article, and considering the fact that they all three used their common social media handles to do so, I would guess that this is their first foray into this kind of canvassing (and probably Wikipedia in general).  That is, we are not looking at a complicated, nuanced or long-standing effort to control content.  So we can cross our fingers and hope these folks have learned from this episode what will and will not fly here and that they will apply themselves to working within policy.  Of course, it could just as easily go the other way--they will simply rededicate themselves to the disruption through other accounts, not realizing that we have the tools to readily catch such activities.  We'll just have to wait and see.  I still support an indef for Lgbt.history though--at least until they have shown some indication that they understand what needs to change here with regard to their behaviour.  <font color="#19a0fd">S <font color="#66c0fd">n <font color="#99d5fe">o <font color="#b2dffe">w  <font color="#d4143a">let's rap 20:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (Still Hijiri. Still unable to log in. Still no idea why.) Meh. The wording of the off-site canvassing message indicates that they were already aware that what they were doing was wrong and were trying to game the system by canvassing followers who already had Wikipedia accounts. They probably won't learn from this unless it is explicitly stated, so I will. Any one of their Tumblr/Instagram followers who already had a Wikipedia account and was a regular contributor would respond to them posting that by reporting them for off-site canvassing, not by doing what they wanted them to do. 182.251.141.136 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree; you have to think that the overwhelming majority of editors with even a sliver of experience would see the need to report this, and certainly would not respond the blatant effort at canvassing/meat puppetry. In fact, that may very well be what happened here, since this tumblr post was brought to our attention by an editor who had previously been uninvolved in the article.  As to whether the parties will learn the right lesson here, I agree there is reason to be skeptical, but I'm just not prepared to assume either way. It could be that the tumblr post was taken down to be more surreptitious about circumventing process, or it could be that Lgbt.history realized this was a losing strategy that no good could come from.  Again, kind of doubtful, given their earlier behaviour, but I've seen other editors turn around and become productive members of the community after worse.  On the other hand, Lgbt.history has not appealed the block in any way, so this may just be the end of their interest in the project.  In any event, there's been no further attempts by SPAs to subvert consensus on the article since this thread began, so hopefully we've seen the end of the disruption from this group, whether they continue to participate here or not.


 * On a side note, have you considered describing your login issue at WP:VPT or WP:HD? Between them, I bet there's one guru or another there that could tell you what's going on.  In fact, VPT currently has a thread that may or may not be related to your issue. <font color="#19a0fd">S <font color="#66c0fd">n <font color="#99d5fe">o <font color="#b2dffe">w  <font color="#d4143a">let's rap 11:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Second, though it pains me to say it, its very likely we will need some page protection (semi or possibly even full) for a time, in order to fend off a potentially large number of meat-puppets. However, I would like to request that this protection be postponed until the disruption manifests; a number of us, notwithstanding LGBT.history.ag's unacceptable tactics, believe that the article could stand with some alterations to better contextualize the trans theory (which is sufficiently sourced). There's a middle ground approach here which would serve both our policies and the reader, and I think it would be best to try to make those middle-ground changes before the article gets locked down. In other words, let's not toss out the baby just because one disruptive user has sullied the bathwater. I would be surprised if we don't eventually have to impose page protection here in the next day or so, given the scale of the meatpuppetry campaign under way, but let's see what we can't get done in the meantime. <font color="#19a0fd">S <font color="#66c0fd">n <font color="#99d5fe">o <font color="#b2dffe">w  <font color="#d4143a">let's rap 02:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support extension of block for User:Lgbt.history.ig, as that Tumblr post was effectively a call to arms with the intention of circumventing the community. Agree with the stuff and substance of the second half of the proposal, but we should hold off on any action until we see the actual extent of the meatpuppetry, if and when it occurs. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  12:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - under conditions advanced by FIM above, to wait and see how effective the call for meatpuppetry was. So far, only regular WP editors have worked on the article recently, but if we see a march of puppets...wham! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd just like to note that the Tumblr post is explicitly canvassing existing Wikipedia editors, rather than recruiting new meat-puppets. One new meat-puppet seems to have appeared, but that was not the stated intention of the Tumblr post, rather its intent was off-wiki canvassing. This means that semi-protection may not be effective. Andrewa (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support both. As someone who's having some trouble logging in on my main editing device at the moment (my laptop is extremely slow and my phone isn't ideal for editing Wikipedia) it sucks that I wouldn't be able to make edits like this without switching devices, but yeah, this user's behaviour is completely inappropriate and this is the only way to prevent it for the foreseeable future. 106.171.73.133 (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just confirming while able to log in that the above is me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


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

When is it proper for someone else to delete material on an article's Talk page?
Under what circumstances is it proper to delete material added by someone else into an article's Talk page. I understanding is that there might be some very rare circumstances, but in most cases it would be improper. Comments? 67.5.233.63 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Without knowing anything more specific, I suggest that you refer to WP:TPO for reference. Basically, an editor should try and avoid editing/removing the talk page comments of others unless there is a very strong policy/guideline-based reason to make such an edit since such a thing can quickly lead to problems between editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say adding comments speculating someone was at fault in a death, without strong evidence, counts as a WP:BLP violation which must be removed. Which is something you already know, since you've tried this before. See the history of Talk:2016 Hoboken train crash --Calton | Talk 07:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are mischaracterizing things. The article that you are referring to has, for well over a month, contained a reference which strongly implies that the engineer was at fault in a train crash, and a death, with no evidence at all other than a lawyer's comment.  Why is that not "a BLP violation which must be removed"?  Be specific.  It sounds like some such references are okay, but others are not.  What is the difference?   67.5.233.63 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The material in the article is based upon citations to reliable sources, and includes only what has been verifiably reported in those reliable sources. Your talk page post includes no sources and no facts; rather, is a wholly-speculative personal attack on the engineer based upon nothing more than your own personal beliefs. Your personal beliefs about people do not get space on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My observation of a contradiction stands: There is a currently implication that the engineer is somehow responsible for a train crash and death, and no evidence (other than a lawyer's sheer speculation about sleep apnea) is cited. Does such mere speculation merit space in WP, even though it is entirely without evidence?   That would be a problem, except for a hidden motivation.  And I haven't changed the article; I merely added a comment on the Talk page, which I am entitled to do.  I am asking for an explanation of this obvious inconsistency, which you are unable to supply.  I am glad to expose this hypocrisy.    67.5.233.63 (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not "entitled" to do anything on Wikipedia. We are not a soapbox or a free speech platform — I'm happy to correct your apparent misconception of our mission. We are a project to write a free-content Internet-accessible encyclopedia based upon reliable sources, and your idle, unsourced, "what if this scenario I just made up in my mind out of whole cloth is true?" rambling has no part of writing a free-content Internet-accessible encyclopedia based upon reliable sources. So it was removed. And it will be removed again. And if you persist, you'll be blocked. I suggest that if you want an open anonymous discussion forum where you can speculate about basically anything all day long, Reddit is over there. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Above, Carlton claimed: "Well, I'd say adding comments speculating someone was at fault in a death, without strong evidence, counts as a WP:BLP violation which must be removed."  Problem is, the current commentary actually naming the engineer, and his alleged case of "undiagnosed sleep apnea" constitute precisely a "comment speculating someone was at fault in a death".  The fact that this was in a quote from a lawyer doesn't justify quoting it.   As is easily seen, the problem with taking a seemingly authoritative position in WP is that you can be called to account for inconsistencies in the application of such a statement.  As I am doing now.  What, precisely, made it improper to name the engineer (prior to the NTSB report) before, yet now the lawyer's sheer speculation somehow is implicitly being used to justify naming that same engineer, also without the NTSB report being finalized and released.  How much more obvious can this inconsistency be?  67.5.233.63 (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That he is named in the article is largely irrelevant. The BLP violation is not solely because you named them. There is a difference between referring to sources which involve speculation as to an undiagnosed medical condition as a cause of the accident (which is what the article does), and what you did which is paste your opinion the condition was known about by the engineer, his wife, and he willfully and dangerously operated heavy machinery in the knowledge he had a condition that risked lives. Which is a potentially libellous completely unproven speculation on your part. If you are unable to see the difference, say so now, and I will propose a topic ban from all BLP's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You said, "The BLP violation is not solely because you named them". You're confused.  First, the current reference to the name of the engineer was entered over a month ago, is still there, and I didn't enter it, although I haven't specifically checked who.  Second, you said "named THEM".  I don't know who you mean by "them".  It is also a "potentially libellous completely unproven speculation" on the part of the cited lawyer to the extent that he mentioned sleep apnea, no less than anything I have done so far.  Above, and below, we find evidence of typical thuggish behavior on the part of WP editors who think they WP:OWN articles.  Also, you are coming to a foolish legal conclusion that it is "libelous" to consider the possibility that the wife might have known about the engineer's sleep apnea.  You're just pretending to know law.  67.5.233.63 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Calton beat me to it, but here's what I was typing. For those just tuning in, 67.5.233.63 is referring to Talk:2016 Hoboken train crash, where reverted their previous comments as . Per BLP, consensus has generally been to avoid naming engineers involved in recent train crashes, especially before the full NTSB investigation (which generally takes 9-18 months). There's the potential for a lot of harm to be done by naming someone who may not have been at fault - or even tried to prevent an accident - as naming them often is taken as a presumption of guilt. What appears to be this same IP user (bouncing around various IPs in the Portland OR / Vancouver WA area) has previously made agressive edits and talk page comments, created multiple ANI threads that boomeranged (see here and the block for BLP violations on the article here), and generally been disruptive. Pinging  who dealt with this before. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I dealt with this before as well; Wikipedia pages are not places to speculate or lay blame, much less to serve as a platform for an anonymous user to soapbox and "shame" a living person involved in a tragic crash whose cause is under investigation and has not yet been determined. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You foolishly refer to "Wikipedia pages" as if there is no distinction between the article pages and Talk pages. There is a very good reason Talk pages exist, and must exist.  Go back, apologize, and try to stop defending incompetent train-drivers.   I see there's yet another incident, today, in Brooklyn.  Are you going to defend that one, too?  67.5.233.63 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Talkpage semiprotected for a month. The OP has been amply answered already — thanks to everybody who has helped explain things to them. The IPs they have been using recently aren't unblockable, but range blocks might involve some collateral damage, so this time I've semiprotected the talkpage instead. That's not ideal either, but some measures have to be taken with this kind of BLP vios. (Attacking the wife and sticking your nose into people's bedrooms, seriously?) I'll just add to the IP, you'd get more respect if you created an account and took some responsibility for your editing instead of playing hide and seek. If you believe in your arguments, why don't you? Bishonen &#124; talk 10:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC).


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


 * Could | This be the same user under a different I.D ? If so, we might be looking at someone determined to push their point of view. <font style=" font-family:Old English Text MT;padding:1px 2px;background:#ADE6E1;border:1px solid;"> Kosh<font style="padding:1px 5px;background:black;"><font color="ADE6E1">Vorlon  }   18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt it's the same, User:KoshVorlon. That time I blocked their ranges for a week, this time I've tried semi. Yes, they're obviously determined to push their POV, but there's not much else we can do. You note their lack of interest in my suggestion that they create an account. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC).


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

Threatening behavior
is bullying me and other IP editors. Please investigate this concern. Please consider issuing a gentle admonishment that the obvious predudice against non-registered users cannot persist, is against wikipedia policy, and that legitimate improvements and attempted improvements in the article text cannot be immediately reverted with edit summaries that amount to no actual explanation at all. 167.88.81.122 (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As opposed to edit summaries that say "just not interested in a wikipedia arse fucking dialectical nosh bashing with some pseudo-elite pompous fucktard so will leave the article and the talk page just as sucky as it was before I started" and "fucik off turd aszs". In other words, you might want to close this now before the boomerang hits you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You'll have to give specific examples of the problem you perceive, 167.xx. I checked the first page of Bilcat's contributions (=the 50 latest), which contained six warnings to IPs, all of them highly proper. I'm afraid you can't expect admins to dig any further at random in the contributions of a very diligent editor. Checking the first 50 was already going the extra mile, IMO, in view of your own behavior as outlined by RickinBaltimore. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC).


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


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


 * A look at the IP's edits, making totally meaningless minor edits just to be able to spew out edit summaries like "hello wikipedia punctuation isnt your strong point, do you have a strong point? why do I see these pathetic monetary appeals whenever I cruise by?? yuck" on Turks and Caicos Islands shows that it's just a troll, and should be treated like obvious trolls usually are, i.e. by being blocked and ignored. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I commented here I'd be "involved", but if another admin sees fit I wouldn't object to that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, BilCat's derogation of IP editors is not "highly proper". I suggest that checking 50 edits in such a short time shows that you are not giving BilCat's accusations on IP Talk pages of vandalistic edits the attention they deserve. It seems to me that multiple reversions in the last 50 are questionnable. Did you even take more than an instant to properly look at, for example, the Talk page template BilCat put on the IP user Talk page for the edit made to MG42, and did you cross-correlate that accusation of vandalism with the actual edit, and did you do any searching as to whether legitimate sources use the nickname the IP drew attention to? I suspect not, or you would not argue that the IP should have received a warning threatening their access be cut off. Nor should I receive a threat of access cut off. This is bullying behaviour and it's not OK. I am not a troll. That's a simplistic ad hominem. All of my edits have pointed out errors in article text. Some of these are so basic as to defy belief. But even with 3 edits to the Afc/NPP piece that quite obviously correct grammar and misspelling, BilCat reverted my the edits. Despite the objective situation, your collective opinion seems to be that reversions merely marked as reversions but not actually explaining the reversion, and which actually incorrectly reintroduce grammar and spelling mistakes, are OK edit summaries. That speaks to the superficiality of your analysis as it seems to me that the reversions are objectively working against improvements that were made. It seems to me that telling that IP editor that this was vandalism when the nickname is in fact used by e.g. National Geographic is being unduly harsh. But here Wikipedia goes again, self-grooming itself with dialectical nosh bashing pseudo-elite pompous rubbish, completely missing the behavioural quirk of its established walled-garden members,in my humble opinion. Of course, I could be completely wrong, and labelling the IP edit as vandalistic is in fact just 100% correct. Go ahead and attack me, that's all you are doing, right? You aren't actually looking at yourselves whatsoever, and it's clear that you have not looked at this request properly. You are all far too fond of "the Boomerang - label the person a troll, don't do any self-analysis, don't look at the actual complaint, cut the "troublemaker" off. That's not a fair or proper response. 167.88.81.122 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to gently suggest that you climb down off your soapbox and stop playing the martyr. It doesn't go over well with this audience. If you have complaints we need evidence. Post diffs with brief explanations. And speaking of brief, we don't get paid by the word here. If you can say it in a sentence (or less) don't write a wall of text. See also WP:TLDR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to know what previous interactions the IP has had with, as other IPs or as an account, because this is IMHO not based on something that has happened recently, and the IP has obviously been here before. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasn't fast enough, being beaten by the IMO too hasty close, but I would like to suggest that someone takes a look at both the OP and Special:Contributions/209.94.182.99, their geolocation differs (one in Florida and the other in Wisconsin, the one in Wisconsin could be acting as a proxy, though...), but both the articles targeted, their edit summaries and their general behaviour is the same... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think there is something to be gained feel free to re-open the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After looking over the IPs, I'm convinced they're the same user. I tend not to get too hung up on how a user seems to exist in multiple locations. Though on that note, I the 209 address is listed by many spam-tracking websites as a source of bulk spam, so it seems a likely proxy address. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Reviewing TPA Access
Kindly review the talk page access of User talk:Grouchy Potato. User appears to be WP:NOTHERE. AIV bot resisting report of already-blocked user here. If and once talk page access is revoked, this discussion should be considered as resolved. User has been alerted of the ANI reporting on their talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User has blanked the ANI notice on their talk page here. --JustBerry (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ per talk page access of user reported being revoked. --JustBerry (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

MusicLover650
While I generally support a fairly hard line when it comes to articles created by banned or blocked users (23 entries at CSD), I'd like to know more about the circumstances associated with user:MusicLover650. I see evidence of evasion of the block but I haven't tracked down the rationale for the original block. (If it wasn't clear why am posting here rather than at the admin's talk page, on some rare occasions we have overridden the general rule that such articles should be simply deleted, but such a decision should be supported by a consensus of informed editors, so I'm raising the question here.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Page watcher here - from what I understand from the "Earflaps" section above, undisclosed paid editing seems to be the problem (though I have no idea where it was first documented). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that section, I had not read it and will now read.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why did you ping MuZemike, who hasn't edited since November? Did you mean to ping, who has nominated some of ML650's articles? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I pinged MuZemike who was the admin who blocked MusicLover650. I realize they haven't been active lately, but I still ping.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kov 93 and BLP violations
This user continues to add unsourced information into WP:BLP articles, despite being warned not to do so. For example this, this, this and most of their recent contributions. They seem to be an experienced editor (since 2008), but fail to acknowledge concerns on their talkpage. I'd appreciate some help with this. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 15:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I dropped a note of caution on their talk page. If the problem persists let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Hungary gives out awards for Kayak and Canoeists of the year annually? Is Hungary a particularly water-sport loving nation? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yes--perennial contenders. Same in Slovakia, Czech. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Repeated recreation of autobiography
AW Bhai appears to be repeatedly recreating autobiographical content despite multiple speedy deletions and notifications on their talk page. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


 * Regardless of the merits of either party's edits, the first thing I notice in that talk thread is that the IP user had included a personal attack both the section heading and in the following paragraph – unjustly accusing the other party of "vandalism", and you appeared to be colluding with them. That, if anything, is disruptive battleground mentality. 2A1ZA was right in redacting the heading, though the way he did it was not the best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It goes deeper Fut.Perf. 2A1ZA tried to eliminate this paragraph twice before here and here. Then the page was protected from IPs and put under the one revert rule (and IP 109 was one of the supporters of the paragraph). 2A1ZA took advantage of this to remove the section arbitrary even though he know that other editors dont agree. So, if him, without a discussion, removing a paragraph that was twice discussed and kept isnt a vandalism then what is ?.
 * Also, if calling that user a vandal is a personal attack, then a quick look at his edits will reveal that he calls anyone who doesnt agree with him a vandal. See here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:What vandalism is not. As long as 2A1ZA is making those edits because he, subjectively, actually likes the article better that way (i.e. isn't deliberately trying to make it worse), he isn't vandalising. He may be stubborn, misguided, tendentious or whathaveyou (just as the people who inserted the paragraph may have been stubborn, misguided, tendentious etc.), but he isn't vandalizing, and claiming that he is remains a blockable personal attack. Of course, the same goes in reverse too. All parties be warned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good enough if it goes both sides.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Furthermore, it seems that user Attar-Aram syria is engaged in wp:Canvassing:,. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the user as it was definitely canvassing. I have also warned them for the edit summary in the diff provided. Although, I am inclined to question who you are since you never edited before and may just stirring the pot even more. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been editing for some time as IP user. However, my IP address changes. But I took part in the discussion on Talk:Rojava (the section that is discussed here) from the beginning (see other, but similar IP) and have followed the discussion since then. I have no connection with the other users in that discussion. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wild IP, :Did you even read what canvassing is ! First, do not stalk me, okay ? Second: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus". We have no consensus here, so how am I trying to sway it ? Do you think that a generic IP like you have a strong voice to create a consensus? Third, both users I contacted have edited the page and participated in the discussions before, so, and according to the canvassing article, I am not picking them based on criteria "such as a userbox, or from user categorization".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, yes, you were canvassing. Your posts were not neutral and was giving away your position on the issue at hand. That is canvassing. It doesn't matter if they participated on discussions, it has to be neutral. Lastly, please stop personally attacking people. "Get a life" is uncivil, a personal attack and unnecessary. Stop it. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stalking my edits is uncivil. Do not give me commands, stop it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not stalking you. Please do not falsely accuse me. All I did was click on the diffs the IP gave. Also, I am not commanding you. I am warning you. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously I wasnt talking about you Callmemirela. I was talking about the IP stalking me. And, please leave the warnings to admins--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone can warn anyone. It's not solely reserved for admins. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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


 * You participate through different generated IPs, you know your way very well, and you go just to support a problematic view in a problematic article. Please, tell me, how is it a personal attack to doubt you.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To doubt is one thing, to write "obviously a blocked old user" is another thing. User Attar-Aram syria should know this. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:BD2412bot is malfunctioning
Wrong information is provided here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.249.64 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That bot hasn't made any edits since December 18. Can you provide more detail? Brad  v  17:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong information is provided where? The last few bot assignments have been routine replacement of existing links following page moves, where the link is updated to point to the same content to which it was pointing prior to the page move. To the extent that the information is wrong, it is because the link was already wrong before the bot came along to update it. bd2412  T 17:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP has made no other edits, so it's impossible to figure out what they might be referring to. This can probably be closed. Brad  v  17:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

The edit made to Tracey Ullman was wrong on so many levels. If this was the first edit made by a complete newbie with know idea at all about Wikipedia, then perhaps there might be room for some non-biting and warnings. Aaron's The Best, however, has been warned about this kind of thing mutliple times, has been previously blocked for adding unsourced content, and was notified of the previous ANI discussion regarding him but did not comment. I'll leave it up to community to determine what should be done, but essenitally blanking a well-developed article like Tracey Ullman and leaving the edit sum "LOL xd" seems to indicate a lack of competence to edit appropriately and that something probably needs to be done to prevent any future disruption of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this. I didn't want to open another discussion about this editor since I started the last one, but I agree that something beyond yet another final warning is necessary. I was frankly rather surprised at the edit linked above, because although ATB is still not particularly concerned with editing collaboratively and still uses language that's not always quite civil, that kind of blatant vandalism is unusual. The bottom line is that it really doesn't seem like ATB gets what Wikipedia is and is not - so WP:CIR, again. Maybe a mentor could help, if he were to agree to that, but other than that I don't know. --bonadea contributions talk 23:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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


 * He just doesn't have the competence to edit. I ran into him a week ago, and I was really confused by his editing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a mixture of good and bad edits, but some of the bad edits are real vandalism, like the blanking of Tracey Ullman. I'm blocking ten days for vandalism. The user can request unblock if they can give a believable explanation for their recent behavior. We don't usually see someone with over 1,000 edits acting this way. Since he created his account in September 2016 he has accumulated a lot of warnings on his talk page. His earliest edits do suggest some prior knowledge of Wikipedia. His non-response to either this ANI or the last one suggests he may not be listening to feedback much.  EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Problem with these users
I have a problem with, and.

The three users falsely accuse me, they discriminate against me and make editing war without reason. I left a friendly message to Triptothecottage, and he directly denounced that I posted porn links, it is obvious that he wants to provoke me to have an excuse and get me out of wikipedia. I also sent another message to Not with all those rocks about. These two users are secretly allied with Derek Camacho, because the latter is a tedious white nationalist that he seeks to make wikipedia to his liking. Dereck Camacho discriminates against me because I am Mexican and by e-mail he insults me with rude words. Please, I need some decent librarian to stop these three harassing and problematic users. I would appreciate it enough. Thank you so much.

Bleckter. --Bleckter23 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry that you believe you have been targeted. I have absolutely no connection with or . Please feel free to examine my editing history to confirm this. I reverted your edits because I was concerned by your use of 9gag (specifically a post about a lingerie soccer team) as a reference in an article which may be potentially controversial. I was also concerned by your use of an alternate account linked to the previously blocked . I will not take any further action until an administrator has responded. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bleckter why did you revert all this information here TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This user is attempting to add NSFW 9gag and Heavy.com links to White Brazilians and Argentines of European descent, which is why I warned the user. Not with all those rocks about (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, just to disclose my entire involvement in this issue: I first reverted at Argentines of European descent here, coming from recent changes. I then visited Bleckter's talk page and, noticing previous warning on several articles, left a level 4 warning here . After noticing and reverting a similarly badly sourced edit at White Brazilians here , I reported Bleckter at WP:AIV here . I have taken no further action as the report is as yet unacknowledged. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I deleted that text because the sources cited don't talk about all that immigration and migratory genetic data to Costa Rica, you are obviously against me and try to spy on me and find the slightest mistake to put it against me. As well as, and . --Bleckter23 (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How about you explain the 9gag edit? I suggest you start there, lest the boomerang be thrown. --Tarage (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am spying on you? You made a few edits, finding that one took 10 seconds so please spare me the false accusations.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * not only are you falsely accusing editors, you are also edit warring and flat out lying. The boomerang will undoubtedly be coming shortly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I will leave this accusation in evidence, so that they see that in spite of everything I am very kind and I desire the good for all. And also, why when deletes my editions,  appears out of nowhere to support him?, not that the two weren't in contact ?, pure lies. --Bleckter23 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * : I said for the thousandth time that it was a mistake, because I reversed an edition in Argentines of European descent and White Brazilians, and I didn't know that it also contained those links. Now answer me, you also want to participate in this Machiavellian plan against me?. --Bleckter23 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop lying. Your first edit under this account to the page was this: . It added the link. There is no conspiracy against you; you are posting inappropriate links. Not with all those rocks about (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I very much resent you accusing me of lying. I believe the evidence I have provided demonstrates that my involvement in this issue is very much incidental. As talk pages at and  indicate, you have frequently been involved in disputes over articles about Latin American demographics. As such, I am going to withdraw my report from AIV, and suggest that you move your discussions to WP:DRN. There, you can discuss your proposed edits to these pages and the reliability of the sources you wish to use. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Bleckter, there are over 100,000 active editors at Wikipedia. Argentines of European descent has 48 page watchers, including 8 who visited the page "recently". The fact that many people show up to oppose your edits is not a sign of conspiracy - it's a sign you might be doing something wrong, and should at listen to what people are saying to you. All that aside, this is a typical content dispute, and no punishments or warnings will be given to the people you think have wronged you. Although I will say you are extremely unlikely to ever get consensus to post links to "hot sexy girls" when the article is not about something to which that is extremely relevant, and a lot of editors will perceive that link as disruptive. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm one of those editors. The moment the user can explain how they keep inserting links to pictures of women in edits like this they can be unblocked. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What am I missing? It takes this much rhetoric to block a screaming troll? Isn't posting links to scantily dressed women as a reference just about the definition of trolling? Thank you  for being the voice of sanity.  John from Idegon (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * John from Idegon, that's the nicest thing I heard all day, but the day is still young. I commend you for your courtesy; may a delicious cupcake fall in your lap. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfectly commendable action by Drmies.Was screaming to be getting blocked! Light ❯❯❯ Saber 05:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

66.169.145.202
There is this IP making these unnecessary edits that doesn't go by WP:MOS. Edits like this, this and this. These edits had got reverted by several editors for these kind of edits, even an editor tell him about MOS but it got ignored. This IP has been blocked before, but after the block was removed, this IP keep making disruptive edits on Wikipedia. This IP has made these edits just recently. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - This appears to be a content dispute based on the assumption that the Manual of Style is policy when it actually isn't. I'm sure people are going to jump in and say that it is policy, but - no, it definitely isn't. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that, because I ask Laser brain about these edits, and he said "Yes, it's disruptive. If they won't respond to notices about minding the MOS, they will have to receive a block because they are making a lot of work for other editors." This IP is not responding to these editors it's keep making edits like this to articles without explaining why. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you don't agree with it, but the Manual of Style definitely is not policy. This is a simple case of two editors disagreeing over content. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think linking pointless phases like this should be acceptable because make it hard to read to some readers, especially in the lead section. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, like I've said, this is a dispute about content. Have you raised the issue on the talk page of the article to seek any form of consensus? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you need to be unnecessarily bureaucratic about this situation. This IP is all over the place making ridiculous edits that violate the MOS, refusing to communicate and causing work for other editors. That's disruption, not a content dispute. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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

List of almshouses in the United Kingdom
An IP user has been systematically removing wikilinks from the above article. I believe it is well-intentioned, at the same time an attempt was being made to sort the entries alphabetically; hence I have not raised this at AIV. Several different IPs have been used: 5.80.113.163, 5.80.114.82, 5.80.114.37 and a couple of others. Since a different IP is used each time it would appear pointless to use talk pages to feedback the problem. Could the page be semiprotected for a short while to combat the removal of the wikilinks please? Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ask at WP:RFPP. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. ✅ Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Philippine Drug War
A new problem user at Philippine Drug War, User:Mr.User200, seems unwilling or unable to discuss his edits, but happy to revert repeatedly. First edit to the page added "Criminal Gangs" to the infobox. Then he reverted User:Hariboneagle927 without explanation, removing "former" from a group that no longer supports the Drug War. He then added a reference for "Criminal Gangs" which doesn't mention anything about gangs. I pointed this out, and his only comment was "Be polite otherwise you will only get into trouble." Well, I think I have been polite, but I am running out of politeness fast. He thinks he can revert repeatedly without explanation. I would like an adjudication of his behaviour. Thanks. zzz (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling my edits bullshit is not a polite way to start a discussion. Also User Signedzzz have an historial of blocks for being offensive in talk pages (Personal attacks and harrasement).Mr.User200 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also the revert made on Hariboneagle was to revert his reversion on another user Edit. You can see in the Article History my contribution with sources and presentation in the Infobox. Iam not marauding articles erasing information because i dont like it.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No: I called the stuff you were adding bullshit, after I had just explained exactly how and why it is bullshit, and after you had repeatedly reverted without responding on talk. What would you call the bullshit you added? Your response was to revert again, and try to provoke an impolite response on the talk page. Are you going to explain why you deceptively added an irrelevant reference to your edit, and repeatedly reverted, now that you're here? Or is that just how you typically edit when there is no source that legitimately supports your edit? zzz (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is not much I can say about your behaviour. It is clear after reading your rhetoric.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still no comment, then, about adding deceptive references and reverting to keep them in articles? It seems like all your edits will have to be reviewed. zzz (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Mruser200 you need to take part in the discussion on the talk page. There's no way to achieve a consensus if you do not. If they do not Signedzzz you could start an RFC and get a consensus for the content you wish to place in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to remove content, including the content with the fake ref added by this user. I could start an RFC, though. zzz (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just suggesting it as it may help. Although his actions seem to constitute edit warring.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been sorted out, now, at the article . Thanks. zzz (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Megavillain vandal (Rangeblock needed)
Some of the IPs involved:
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!
 * And there's probably a lot more where that came from!

The report: I actually took this to SPI a while back, but they couldn't do anything because the user discards their IP addresses, with the exception of (which is almost certainly a shared address). For over a year now, this user has essentially vandalised Wikipedia nonstop, with their primary M.O. being to blank information and change the words "superhero"/"supervillain" to "megahero"/"megavillain". They have been warned repeatedly to stop, but have refused to respond or do so. Not only that, but much of their vandalism will go days without even being detected (such as their recent disruption at List of Batman Family adversaries). For this reason, they are starting to become a genuine threat to the Wiki and I believe that there is a serious case for rangeblocks in this instance.  Dark Knight  2149  22:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be a trivial edit filter or Cluebot modification.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the current IPv6 address, 2601:545:4403:5D30::/64, and the IPv4 address could have been blocked had they received any warnings about their disruption. The other IPv6 addresses are stale for blocking purposes. I suggest leaving some warnings on User talk:98.219.220.18 if they resume the same pattern of editing, then taking them to WP:AIV.
 * Also, as Acroterion points out, this is something that can be handled automatically if the block doesn't work. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * will be easy to keep an eye on. I left warnings on some of the most recent (at the time) IP addresses when I came across them. I didn't really pay attention to which specific IP ranges I warned, as it's obviously the same disruptive user. Regarding 's suggestion, an edit filter or Cluebot modification could be useful if this keeps happening.  Dark Knight  2149  17:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Canvasing for The People's Cube
Earlier today I AfD'd an article because it did not seem to meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. I only noticed this 9 year old article after searching for something unrelated off-Wiki, as I explained in my response to the user who accused me of being canvassed. Ironically it was due to a canvassing attempt by the subject of the article in question that I even ran across this article (it's a top-search under the #wikipedia hashtag currently.) Upon returning to Twitter moments ago, there is a new canvas attempt specifically asking editors to vote Keep at the AfD. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see how that goes. So far it's relatively quiet., I see you've been active there as well; thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was reviewing the article myself, looking for decent sources, and Chrissymad already had the AfD up and running well before I'd finished my research. I'm going to admit that a lot of the work I've done in the past couple of days (including reverts, revdels, page protections, and possibly even a block or two) has started out by looking at an article referred to on Twitter. Luckily I can read the stuff without having to create an account or log in. Risker (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Twitter...I think I've heard of that...isn't that the replacement for the old-fashioned press secretary, a mere mortal? Drmies (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is in fact, as the name suggests, an electronic meeting place for twits. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Talk:Kelley Wise
Please see the talk page of Kelley Wise.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 03:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * has made legal threats on Talk:Kelley Wise and on my user talk page . —C.Fred (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Editor is blocked and his A7 article deleted and delinked from other pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Finally, I believe this answers your other question: Does Twinkle treat rollback of vandalism as a minor edit? I do not see why it should, neccesarrily, but there's nothing "deceptive" about that, at least on my part. Restoring an inaccurate summation of a cite without substantive discussion certainly looks a good deal like vandalism.Anmccaff (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strike that falsehood about "bald faced lies", please. No. I stand by it. You have changed how you characterized the study over time without demonstrating any evolving understanding of it, and your explanation above does not support your assertion. I think you may need to look up the Null hypothesis if you honestly believe it does. However, based on your comments about this issue here at ANI and elsewhere, I do not believe that you lack the necessary understanding to comprehend the difference between the implications of your argument and your edit summary. Furthermore, you've responded to meaningful complaints about marking your revert as minor by accusing well-meaning editors of vandalism, a blatantly untrue accusation. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, nothing so complicated. A cite which does not support the general claim made -it does not claim that the named diets do not provide cardiovascular benefits, merely that they appear to be boringly modest, and, in the case of Atkins, two steps forward, on step back.  It explicitly disavows any particular conclusions about SB in particular, since the study it was based on did not provide the data.  It is not a useful cite for the purpose, and should not be edit warred back in.
 * No, I accused Alexbrn of vandalism before the mistaken Twinkle setting problem, and stand by it. Not the drive-by graffiti kind, but the tendentious editing kind. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're doubling down on a false, bad faith accusation. Gotcha. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I see his work on SB -amd several other related pages, as a distribution from Wikipedia, not a contribution to it. I see it as tendentiopus POV pushing, not at all unlike the trumped-up, so to speak, POV editing on Snopes. No bad faith involved. Anmccaff (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The thing is, content editing, including edit warring, is not vandalism. Ibadibam (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think every single example given there can, if taken to an extreme enough degree, be so, and I'd put repeatedly reverting to an unarguably inaccurate cite in that category. That said, If you'd prefer to describe it some other way, like "tag-teaming ownership", I don't think I'd argue.  Anmccaff (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you wouldn't argue, then don't. Read Ibadibam's link to learn what is not vandalism, why calling editors vandals is a personal attack, and why being confused about what is and is not vandalism is harmful to the project. If you disagree with a contribution, fine, but calling everything you disagree with vandalism is inaccurate and damaging. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, point taken, somewhat; if nothing else, it's vague. Anmccaff (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

 * Support topic ban for all diet topics. As says this is plainly disruptive, and it's been going on for a long time now. The editor only seems to have been emboldened by ANI not acting last time. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (Add) just to note that from 's additions above and from this edit, it seems there is a complete lack of repentance and strong indication this is only going to continue. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I have dropped a strongly worded warning on their talk page. If this problem continues a block and or topic ban may have to be considered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I Support a topic ban., I respect your restraint, but in light of 's response above, I strongly suspect a stern warning might not be enough. There are clear indications of a battleground mentality, here. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban With respect to, this is the second time Anmccaff has been brought to ANI for this in a couple of weeks, and their behavior hasn't changed since then. I think a "strongly worded warning" is going to do jack all. Anmccaff's battleground style of editing topics such as this diet does not add anything useful to Wikipedia, so they should be restricted from it. Valeince (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A report which led, rightly, to no action. As I mentioned above, Jytdog and Alexbrn have used threats of administrative action, repeatedly, to assert ownership over the subject. This was just another example of this.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support either a topic ban from all diet topics or an indefinite block. Considering the previous ANI and the user's actions and demeanour since then, I agree the time for warnings is past. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Oppose. I have been involved with all three of these editors on several different pages. While is certainly a difficult editor, banning him from all diet-related topics would be an overreaction. This particular clause has been contentious since it was added, and  and  have taken turn reverting anyone who disagrees. I would encourage all three of them to stick to the WP:BRD cycle when editing, refrain from inflammatory edit summaries, and be civil on talk pages.  Brad  v  22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when is a tag used to alert the readers? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this is here, but inline tags like Template:Disputed inline are specifically designed to alert other editors to the existence of a discussion on the talk page, according to WP:AD. Brad  v  01:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You previously wrote "The tag is alerting the reader to the above section." That's not the purpose of using a tag. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What's it for then? Brad  v  02:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Letting other editors know there is a concern with the text. That was accomplished. Was there an attempt to rewrite the text? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 14:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The editor's contributions are not limited to one topic area, nor are the patterns from which this ANI post arises. A topic ban will not accomplish anything here. Ibadibam (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. The point of a TBAN is not to prevent someone contributing everywhere, but only to restrict them from participating where they are continually disruptive -- See WP:TBAN. The diffs here and in the earlier filing show that Anmccaff is continually disruptive on the topic of diets.Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , am I correct in reading into your comment that you would prefer a site ban? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. The editor is pretty consistent in their style from topic to topic. If a warning isn't sufficient, then a site ban is warranted. Ibadibam (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since that is the case, might I suggest changing your vote to "support"? My rationale being: at this juncture, a site ban is unlikely (it hasn't even been proposed). The previous ANI had no effect on the behavior, possibly because it imposed no sanctions. The more "oppose" !votes here, the less likely a topic ban is to be implemented. Assuming you are correct that the problem exists in other areas, then an existing topic ban for this exact behavior in this area will serve as compelling evidence in a future ANI about bad behavior in other areas. If that is not to your preference, then might I suggest proposing a site ban below? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * above you wrote "a topic ban is unlikely (it hasn't even been proposed)" but this section is titled "proposed topic ban". Did you mean something else? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I've corrected it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wellllll, I'm not sure I'd actually support a site ban at this time, given the escalatory way this dispute has been handled by the pair of editors who constitute Anmccaff's opposition (and subsequently elevated this to ANI). It's just that a topic ban isn't going to stop Anmccaff from being the headstrong editor that they are, site-wide. In this case, I might suggest probation and/or 0RR. Ibadibam (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

color="vermillion">QuackGuru ]] ( talk ) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did an editor delete a MEDRS compliant systematic review? Wow! I support a topic ban from AN/I for any editor who supports any other editor deleting relevant MEDRS compliant systematic reviews from articles. [[User:QuackGuru|<font
 * Even if the MEDRS cite was used against its meaning? Wow.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What could have been done is provide a quote from the source and try to rewrite the claim if an editor thinks it is not accurate or request a quote from the source to verify the claim. Deleting a review is never a good option. I have caught numerous editors adding original research. I have also caught editors and admin/admins rewriting sourced text that made it unsourced text. It has been months and I have still not fixed the mass original research. I am patient. If I have to wait over a year to fix it then that is what I am going to do. The admin or admins who replaced sourced text with original research know who they are. They did it intentionally. But I will still remain patient. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 14:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. Blatantly tendentious editing and the user seems unwilling to acknowledge any possibility of being wrong. Guy (Help!) 01:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blantant tendentiousness is certainly there, but if you see some on my part, it should be boringly simple for you describe to position you see being pushed. What would you think that to be? Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban - I had been ignoring this thread, but after reading it, and looking into the contribs and the background, I have to support a topic ban from all health issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The diffs and article talk show that the editor is pushing a favored line unduly. It has gone on too long. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The diffs show a pretty clear disruptive mentality, but even going so far as to delete MEDRS systematic reviews seems to indicate the topic ban is definitely needed to prevent further disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I'm usually quiet on these sorts of matters, but the above example of deleting a systematic review seals the deal for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Comment - I'm not familiar with the full history of the dispute, but on a cursory review it appears that Anmccaff's complaint has merit, and the various tendentious editing is a frustrated response to being dismissed out of hand by other justifiably frustrated editors. I only have access to the summary of the study cited and its abstract, but rather than supporting the article's statement "", first of all the study did not analyze cardiovascular effects but only weight loss, and apparently since the review only identified a single study regarding South Beach that met their criteria, they simply stated no conclusion with respect to that diet, thus it does not support the assertion that "these [cardiovascular benefit] claims have not been borne out by evidence". None of this justifies the edit warring but it should be considered in context. I recommend these editors try dispute resolution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not very helpful to support a claim as having "merit" when you haven't read the source (which is freely available). If you had you would see it states quite plainly that this diet is promoted to aid cardiovascular risk factors; the authors state "We included RCTs that examined the effects of Atkins, SB, WW, and Zone [...] on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors with follow-up ≥4 weeks"; and in their conclusion they state "Our study was designed to examine the evidence currently available from the literature to examine the efficacy of 4 commercial, popular diets on weight loss and improving cardiovascular risk factors [..]" (all my bolds). So your statement that "the study did not analyze cardiovascular effects but only weight loss" is completely at odds with the source. The authors looked for evidence and there was none, hence the claims for SBD are not borne out by evidence, as we say. The reason why the weight loss element of this source is not included is because this aspect is already well covered in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the PDF of the study now, it was silly of me to have missed it before. In it it does state quite prominently (page 2 inset) that "" as well as "" (underline added) I admit I don't have time to read the entire study at the moment, but under conclusions it states nothing explicitly about South Beach, but offers "" I feel that "not borne out by evidence" implies a negative, whereas the source is merely inconclusive with regard to cardiovascular outcomes of this particular diet, thus the article could better represent the source. Might I suggest, "" or something more reflective of the literature? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In light of this, are you considering changing your !vote? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In evidence-based medicine the assumption is that something does not work unless there is evidence to the contrary, hence a fair presentation of this content in a lay encyclopedia is negative. In any case, this thread is not about content, but about the repeated long-term POV-pushing, WP:UNCIVIL behaviour and deletion of content by .Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, at least twice. Were the cite to draw some conclusion, stating that a particular cite did not support the assertion would obviously be proper, but the cite specifically asserts that the the previous study it was based on did not record that particular data. Putting over something that does not investigate something as proving its failure is not acceptable.
 * What data that was recorded, however, showed all the diets to be efficacious, just not remarkably so, with the well-known exception of Atkins, which showed mixed results, for rather obvious reasons. It does not say they they failed, compared to usual treatment, but rather that they did the same, more or less...again, hardly a remarkable medical situation.
 * Finally, the study explicitly noted that it restricted itself to studies which explicitly cited diets by commercial name, rather than by regimen, which has it's own implications. Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't say it's been "proved to have failed" (as if that were possible) but that the claims made for the diet are not borne out by evidence. Which is exactly the case, as we know from out good source. Continuing to misrepresent the situation does not help your case. Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems fine, I wouldn't disagree with that outcome, but it did take a bit of discussion just now for me to get to the point of agreeing with you. Do you think it's a beneficial pattern to automatically accost every editor who attempts to intervene? (e.g.   ) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban as proposed. Anmccaff does not appear to understand (or care) that the sources they continually bring up are with regard to other fad diets, or broad discussions about loosely related health topics, and using those to imply conclusions about South Beach is synthesis and not allowed. Their stubborn refusal to get this point has repeatedly turned the article into a battleground, and while other editors are not blameless, removing the source of frustration ought to significantly improve the situation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, those would be side commentary on the equivocation used for "fad diet" by these two editors. Could you point out some example that looks otherwise to you?  Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment. See "A wide variety of diets are available to promote weight loss and improve cardiovascular risk factors, such as lipid levels, blood pressure, and glycemia. Among them, 4 are particularly popular among North Americans. Millions of copies of Atkins, South Beach (SB), and Zone instructional books have been sold,1–3 and over a million Weight Watchers (WW) members attend its weekly group meetings globally.4" Later on the source says "Despite their popularity and their substantial contribution to a billion-dollar industry, the efficacy of these diets in promoting sustained weight loss and improving cardiovascular risk factors remains unclear."

Current text "The diet is promoted with claims it can improve cardiovascular health, but these claims have not been borne out by evidence."

More accurate text is "The diet is promoted as improving risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease, but the effectiveness for improving these risk factors is unclear." QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note disruption continues with the tagging of a source as only pertaining to the Atkins Diet when even the most cursory reading of the source shows this is not the case. in light of your warning, you might want to look at this. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus
In light of the above, it seems evident there is a clear consensus here. There have been 13 editors who have made their opinion known. Only three !voted to oppose a topic ban. Out of those three, all agree that 's behavior has been disruptive. One editor has opposed it in favor of broader restrictions, and one editor  has changed their oppose !vote to a support one. That leaves 11 supports and 2 opposes. Only one of those opposes actually opposes the imposition of sanctions ('s), and even that one acknowledges Ammcaff's disruptive behavior. I think the community has made their thoughts clear on this matter. Pinging and, two admins who have looked at this to possibly implement such a topic ban. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  16:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

PantherLoop adding original research to articles
has been adding original research to articles, after being repeatedly warned not to do so (see their talk page for all warnings). In November, I warned them after they did it here, and four days ago after they did it here and here, and they have done it again today here and here. I've warned them in the past about their disruptive editing, e.g. for their lack of edit summary usage (judging by their contribs, they have never used one), large expansion of an image here, removal of a maintenance tag here and removal of links to sister Wikis (here, here and here), and the only time they've responded to me is to say sorry about removing the links here. Should any sanctions be given for this? Linguist Moi?  Moi.  15:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

However, this is my take on this, and I will be very helpful if you would share your view. Regards, — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  18:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the comment left by Jytdog on your page wasn't quite helpful, but the edits you are making do support the accusation by Alexbrn that you are promoting fringe theories. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Promoting"? Is it about the word "concept"? "Concept", and not "belief", is used all over Yoga, Ayurveda, etc. I didn't know it is now promotional, very sorry. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  18:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't expect your contributions not to be reverted out of "respect", especially when you make controversial edits and add content in a lede with a template added. You forgot to mention you reverted the revert - so beginning edit-warring. Finally you say I accused you of "promoting fringe theories" and put those words in quotation marks. Where are you quoting me from? I don't believe I wrote that - diff please! Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, perhaps I should have removed the statement altogether instead of removing only the non-RS link. Because what does it mean "Meridian... has not been proven." by the way? Proven to function as described? Proven to exist? Proven to be an object of belief? But I now see nobody can touch the lede in any way without being attacked with warnings.
 * 2. See your labelling of my edit as WP:PROFRINGE in your edit summary.
 * 3. If anything is controversial, then it is the article's reliance on non-RS compliant sources, like the personal blog quoted in the last section and labelled "evidence-based medicine". Shall we call it a "belief in personal blogs"? — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  18:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right so you now accept your edit was problematic, and it turns out I didn't "accuse" you using those words, but characterized the edit as WP:PROFRINGE in my ES, which is a bit different. Granted the article has problems, but this rush to WP:ANI on spurious grounds and the idea you should be revert-proof looks like a problem too. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


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


 * adds or leaves unsourced content that is often promotional: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff (promo too), diff (adding content with a "cn" tag, oy), diff, diff, diff, diff,
 * PROMOTIONAL? Can you clarify what or whom I promoted? Naming the institution that is carrying out paryicular research is a promo? You must be kidding, or just doing anything to undermine my credibility. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * removing well-sourced content: diff and edit wars to remove it again here (same diff as one above)
 * "Well-sourced" to a personal blog or an anyonymous website. Great. We sure need more such "well-sourced" articles.— kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * made content too technical diff (see next edit that explains problems)
 * precision does not mean "technical". But why researching edits from years ago? Could find nothing newer? — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * made content inaccurate: diff (changed "distributes to periphery" to "distributes to peripheral nerves" which is dead wrong)
 * Check out the meaning of peripheral nervous system, boy. Nusinersen does NOT distribute to other peripheral tissues than neurons (in case you did not know, being an ASO, it does not cross BBB - that's the reason for its intrathecal administration by the way). "Periphery", which you copied from the label, stands for "peripheral nervous system". You sure want to edit or comment on medicine-related articles? — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * adds bad refs: diff (same diff as above), added primary sources that fail MEDRS
 * I can't believe you can dismiss an academic paper which summarised trial data, published in a respectable journal, as a "primary source" and "bad reference" - on top of that, a paper authored by several PI-s on that multicentre trial. One of two or three independent publications, i.e., authored by researchers other than Biogen's employees. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ignores MEDMOS:  diff (same diff as above), added dosing information which we don't do; see whole article version) before I brought it into compliance with MEDMOS in these diffs; OP was the creator and biggest contributor up to that point per the history.
 * I added frequency of administration, per patient leaflet, which is fixed and identical in all patients, and not drug dosage. You removed it, I guess you thought this might serve as a medical advice to someone. A normal editing process, although it would be more polite if you discussed your doubts.
 * Moreover, you added INCORRECT information on clinical trial results (no, the data quoted on the leaflet did NOT relate to all phenotypes, it was the data from only one of the two separate trials) and efficacy (no, nusinersen can, and did, have zero or very mild efficacy in some patients - read your leaflet with more attention). You also added financial predictions - i.e., how much profit the drug will bring to the manufacturer  - all whilst WP is NOT a crystal ball or an investment handbook (why promoting Biogen anyway?).
 * See, all this discussion should have taken place on the Talk page and not here, I regret you refused to engage and summarily reverted when I asked you to slow down. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The adding of unsourced OR to articles about health is especially damaging to WP.
 * Precisely that's the reason I questioned your edits, especially your unsubstantiated claims on efficacy of nusinersen. I removed them, but unfortunately you then hit the Revert button. Pity that you only see how much damage others do.— kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Further, their jumping in to the Meridian (Chinese Medicine) article was very likely stalking/BATTLEGROUND, since they made their first edit to it (see their contribs to that article) at 14:44, 04 January 2017, after this message was left on my talk page at 04:17, 4 January 2017.
 * I am not looking for any kind of block or ban but this filing was not necessary and they should be warned to source content they add to WP and to follow MEDMOS/MEDRS when editing about health matters. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Talk:Nusinersen - No discussion about the edits on article talk page.
 * Hear this, ? It must be about you as I usuccessfully tried to engage you in editing collaboratively (on your Talk page).
 * Talk:Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - No discussion about the edits on article talk page.
 * Was there, check the archives. Also, ever read WP:BOLD?
 * Talk:Spinal muscular atrophy - No discussion about the edits on article talk page.
 * How got? You sure are reading the same page? In my edition of Wikipedia, the majority of comments on that Talk are mine, with very few responses anyway.
 * Talk:Meridian (Chinese medicine) - No discussion about the edits on article talk page.
 * Average response time on that Talk seems to be well over 6 months, wasn't ready to wait that long and went BOLD. Is that a sin?
 * It seems like there might be a pattern here...of no one involved in this dispute discussing anything about these issues at all. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that.  This filing was premature and we (including I) have not discussed these disputes at Talk pages.  Please note that my disputes with Kashmiri were primarily at the Nusinersen article where I noticed the pattern of bad editing; I gathered the diffs above from looking at their contribs, to flesh out that it is indeed a pattern of poor editing.  Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether good editing or bad, Wikipedia requires users to collaborate on editing. Unfortunately, you refused to engage in any discussion. At the time when spinal muscular atrophy attracts particular attention of the media and patients, you destroyed consistency of the article, started live drafting, and saved unfinished draft versions with errors for hours. I politely proposed you to draft on the Talk page for discussion - but you refused. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  02:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just want to add that my warning at Kashmiri's talk about about unsourced content (diff) mentioned above, followed this earlier warning I left there (diff) which they immediately removed.  That in turn followed my pointing out unsourced content in various edit notes like this and this and others.   That template:uw-unsourced3 warning was not out of the blue.  Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This looks a heck of a lot like trouts for one side for mistaking ANI for a talk page, and trouts for the other for templating an editor who's been here for 12 years, and mistaking it for discussion. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest trouts for anyone who complains about an editor getting a template for behavior that clearly needed to be corrected (older account age should be even more reason for a template in such instances, not less), but I personally prefer catfish. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because a content dispute spreads across multiple articles doesn't make it not a content dispute. Being an experienced editor makes breaking basic rules more egregious, but it also heightens solidifies the expectation that you will engage in discussion before things escalate to the point where you are resorting to boiler plate templates. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why Kashmiri's behavior was problematic here (again, the burden was on them to pursue discussion if they wanted their changes to stick). They essentially acted like a new editor (though not all new editors act poorly) by ignoring various rules we have. Since it's apparent they were either not aware of them or ignored them, that's exactly what the templates are there for regardless of account age. Sometimes even an only slightly-less-than-sagely editor still needs to be reminded of policies and guidelines when they slip up. Even the WP:DTTR essay cautions against an absolute mentality of not using templates on regulars because sometimes even regulars don't act like experienced users. It almost always looks there's a petty underlying squabble and missing the point going on when someone complains about a template being used. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DTTR is an essay; WP:CON is a policy, and consensus doesn't happen without discussion. Discussion is not requested; it is required, and templating does not constitute discussion. It is not the presence of templates, but the absence of discussion that is the problem. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually pointed out DTTR was only an essay because you were pushing that using the template was somehow problematic. Your posts are oddly sniping at those who were attempting in a pretty standard fashion to deal with Kashmiri's behavior and lack of discussion. It's sometimes common for editors prone to edit wars to skip talk page discussion after getting feedback in initial edit summaries, so it's silly to accuse editors dealing with that because they have nothing to respond to on the talk page in the first place; they wouldn't know what Kashimiri's problem with a particular revert/edit summary would be or if there were even follow-up problems in the first place until they got a response on the talk page.


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


 * Close? I don't see anything for admins to do here as long as Kashmiri learns how to use the talk page when their edits don't stick (i.e., WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN) while using sources. If this had been more of a long-term ongoing problem, this would be a good candidate for a WP:BOOMERANG, but it looks like this at least rises into warning territory for now for Kashmiri instigating edit wars and adding unsourced content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also add that at least some of the "unsourced content" appears to be content in the lead, which probably doesn't need further explanation here. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure per LEAD no refs are needed in the lead. But the content must be sourced in the body, and in these cases it wasn't. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Close lest we continue to fight a rhetorical war over who is more wrong in a situation where no one is right. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, had to step out for a few hours. I think what Jytdog did above requires more than a trout: taking out my unrelated edits, some from years ago, and suddenly complaining that they were "too technical", etc., sounds like a WP:BOOMERANG. Still, I am adding comments above. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  02:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have suggested on their talk, Kashmiri needs to undo their confusing-comments-within-comments edits, something they should already know not to do, and instead make a separate reply, if necessary. Timothy Joseph Wood  03:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Cheetoburrito
Can you guys take a look at these articles page history like, Trap House III, Trap House 4, and The State vs. Radric Davis II: The Caged Bird Sings. There is this user named Weweremarshall (who been blocked months earlier) probably made a new account and keep reverting Koala15 edits. If you guys look at Weweremarshall's edits mouths earlier, like this one, compared to Cheetoburrito's edits, like this one here, they looked very similar, can you guys take a look at this. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Has lodged a case at Sockpuppet investigations/Maya515. Light ❯❯❯ Saber 13:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this nonsense has been going on for weeks now, this user is doing the same thing as before, instead having a consensus on the articles talk page, this user keep reverting other editors' (who has more experience) edits and making false claims of vandalism. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Miler5255
At the Rainbow Ruby article, I removed the bits claiming the show was a co-production with CBeebies (because actually, it's not), but User:Miler5255 is keep adding it back. Also, the user is deleting the things including CPLG and the UNESCO bits without giving any justifiable reason. I did throw some questions at the user, but the user ignored them and gave no answer. What I tried to do was giving improvements to that article, but the user is keep destroying it for no reason. I believe Miler5255 should be blocked from editing anything on Wikipedia. --58.123.222.52 (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on what should be done yet, but IP couldn't you have asked your questions on the article's talk page rather than the article itself, as is usually done?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I left the questions at the user's talk page, NOT the Rainbow Ruby article itself. --58.123.222.52 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you do ask a question with this edit "Francophone Canada: Anyone sure Yoopa did air Rainbow Ruby?", but you also did direct questions to the user on his talk page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think you made well-intended edits IP, other than for edit warring. Could you please fix your sources though? At the moment, they are bare links.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. --58.123.222.52 (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Miler5255 but was reverted.  That's not the best way to address concerns of disruptive editing.  I left a warning on his talk page.  Hopefully, that will be enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * it is not too promising when they immediately blank your warning and have yet to comment on their actions here or elsewhere.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I'm also concerned about the IP's claim that he been adding false information. I've reverted an edit he made that changed sourced content on another article, but I really don't know anything about the topic area.  At any rate, the blanking seems to have stopped.  58.123, let me know if there are further problems.  I'm getting a bit tired of disruption in children's cartoons. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed all the unsourced claims about Rainbow Ruby on other articles. By the way, is it just me, or are User:Miler5255 and User:Mil92945Render the same person? --58.123.222.52 (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked Miler5255. I initially blocked him for disruption, but then I noticed that he impersonated me to intimidate the above IP editor.  This, mixed with the other disruption, has led me to believe he's not here to contribute constructively.  About the globally locked account: yes, it certainly looks like him.  I'll see about getting Miler5255 globally locked, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What a F***wit. Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. --58.123.222.52 (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass WL removal
I'm...not entirely sure what's going on here, but in the span of about six minutes this (six minute old) user has removed WLs to Taiwan from near 200 articles. I'm assuming this has something to do with User:Favonian, given the...unique edit summaries. Timothy Joseph Wood 16:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess this is a sock of LTA vandal ? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Before seeing this report, I reverted this user's edits and blocked until a sufficient explanation is provided. It definitely appeared to be a sock of a blocked user.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Too easy. This was probably AIV territory anyway, but it wasn't inconceivable that there was some good faith rationale behind it, even being disruptive. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah yes – vintage NDG edit summaries. Incidentally, no Dane is safe around him, witness this gem. Favonian (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I suppose there are worse monarchs one could be accused of having relations with. I mean, Isabella I amirite? Or good old keeping-things-in-the-family Charles Timothy Joseph Wood  17:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (tbh, I think Favonian is rather a Great Dane.) (sorry. It had to be said.) bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Your words bring tears to my outsized, canine eyes.
 * Re. 's disturbing array of monarchs, who need a good leaving alone, my favorite royal preying mantis remains Catherine de' Medici. Don't care what the revisionists say – to me, Alexandre Dumas will always be a Reliable Source. Favonian (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * the account was globally locked by --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Billinghurst and RfD
User_talk:Billinghurst The discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_24 was closed with little input, I know, I could bring this to DRV, but User:Billinghurst initially removed the deletion tag from the redirect presumably with rollback and without closing it, he then closed it but once again, without providing an edit summary indicating that it was closed, so I assumed that it was not, when it was indicated to me, a series of personal attacks were directed. I thought it was inappropriate for the debate to be closed with little input, but it was even more questionable to use rollback/undo in that occasion, it then developed into a personal attack, which I absolutely do not tolerate. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair dinkum. What a load of crock. You reverse engineer the scenario and didn't talk about your reverting my edits, and put facile revert templates on my user talk page. I returned a redirect and closed a conversation. If you had taken a few moments to explore, or to ask you could have that explanation, but you didn't. Running straight to ANI! Storm in a teacup. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason that I reverted the edits was that there was no explanation in the edit summary, rollback is only meant to be used to revert vandalism, I believe that I was in good faith using the notification templates. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't spin me! The first edit to the page that I made was this summary "President of Australia ‎ (Undid revision 756523400 by Champion (talk), leaving as it is)" which you reverted while I was closing the discussion (fandangled templates we have now!). Your subsequent revert of me was well later and after the discussion was closed. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is going nowhere. Billinghurst posted a very minor personal comment on their talk page, but not enough to really be an issue. Champion ought to not template the regulars. No admin action required. If you think the close was done wrongly, go to DRV. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Swadhyay Parivar
Could somebody take a look at the edit history please? Swathes of copyvio, but no citations/sources. I'll notify the editor concerned. Roxy the dog. bark 23:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have blocked User:Alpaniraj indefinitely, they've been blocked previously and warned enough times. I will monitor the article and protect it if such silliness continues. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanhks. Roxy the dog. bark 23:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Were they the facebook copvios? O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of it was, from the Swadhyay-Movement page. The rest of it was copied from elsewhere, but all of it was unsourced and unencyclopedic, not to mention that the edit removed every piece of sourced dissenting opinion. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I have stubbed the page per BLP, because of the unsourced claims against living people. Taking it to BLP/N. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Massive IP editing on article under arbcom sanctions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2017_Jerusalem_vehicular_attack should be under sanctions covering Israel-Palestine, but there are a ton of IP POV warriors editing the page (they seem to be more skewed towards the Palestinians at the moment, but that could change at a moments notice).

Could an admit intervene and at the very least semi-protect the page and possibly undo the IP edits?74.70.146.1 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely EC'd under WP:ARBPIA3—whatever the motivation of the attacker turns out to be, no sane person would doubt that it could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict which is all that's required. &#8209; Iridescent 17:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits User:Doveanupam
has been repeatedly warned for adding commentary such as this, this, this and this to longevity articles. In addition they have also repeatedly violated BLP by adding uncited information such as [this, this and this and have disrupted articles with incorrect and unnecessary edits such as this. They have only ever engaged on a talk page once in their 4+ years of editing English Wiki, with this edit after this edit was reverted. In short this user has consistently shown a disregard for basic Wiki guidelines and has ignored repeated warnings about their edits. Any edits which have not been disruptive have generally been pointless or no improvement. [[User:DerbyCountyinNZ| DerbyCountyinNZ ]] (Talk Contribs) 07:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Note Discretionary sanctions are active in this topic area. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. An indefinite block is reasonable. Inception2010 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A long ban (one year maybe) is reasonable. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Yes, ds are active, but I don't see much point in a topic ban, with all the issues as outlined here and on their talkpage. Indefinitely blocked. This is an ordinary block, without invoking ds. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC).

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


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


 * I've reverted to the stable version before the edit war and highly recommend that both editors discuss the matter on the article's talk page before making any further changes. However, I must emphasize to that you must explain why an official name is wrong instead of declaring it as such. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Have requested page protection as the editor is now switching IPs to continue their edit war and refuse to discuss the matter on the talk page. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Support -- What's more suspicious is the rather irritating IP which is currently itching away like an untreated case of thrush. I wouldn't be surprised if old Moxy and the troll are one of the same.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think AT&T operates in Canada, where Moxy self-identifies as living. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I live in Picton Ontario Canada and work at Ottawa University. This POV that all IP inquiries are invalid is a problem ...should not delete comments for this reason. ....will log out and edit with my ip and mac for all to see.--64.228.141.191 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am just here to respond to Dianaa. AT&T does in fact not operate in Canada. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * You regularly comment in infobox discussions, this would affect that.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes i have commented many times on about 5 bios. Mostly because  readers inquiry at the help desks....but yes I will not reply to inquiries at the help desk or comment about them. I dont think i am in the wrong here.....just see that the POV on this will not change dispite the studies and readers requests. As you know I not involved in the edit wars you guys get into over this so that won't change. --Moxy (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The concern isn't that you edit war or force infoboxes yourself. It's your conduct on talk pages and trolling which is problematic. Articles like Stanley Kubrick have become fodder for this sort of disruptive behaviour, it's like you're trying to bait us into conflict again. You even admit to enjoy seeing the same argument unfold again and again. Anybody here who likes to see time wasting discussions, rather than wanting to contribute to content and work with editors to build content should problably be banned entirely from the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup your correct I do join in when I see it come up on certain pages....like many do. Do I belive I am the big problem editor involved in these talks all over.....not even close. Like most here I edit and join debates that I find interesting and are fun to debate. I belive accessibility should be our biggest concern. ....others not from my POV. My reputation here speaks for itself....dispite my dyslexic grammer problems on talks that some enjoy point out.--Moxy (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Support- It is absolutely outrageous that Moxy should revel in the "fun" of pestering other users about infoboxes "again and again and again" and gloat about editors getting burnt out and retiring over this issue (as has happened quite recently). Moxy says s/he will not participate in infobox discussions any more but should be formally restricted from doing so,in case Moxy finds the "fun" too tempting to stay away.Smeat75 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to have that all wrong.... I enjoy watching them squirm over and over again trying to defend a position of ignorances. I dont hound them ,,,just let them know when it comes up by our readers at the help desk etc...as I do with many many topics, I also  try to  explained to our readers and IP editors why they are being diminished or post simply deleted.   But if all think I am the main problem by all means to what you will...but as we all know and have seen in the past ...we have editors causing  much more problems during the debates.    I wish all a good new year and hope our editors think of our readers and not  simply side with there friends....stand on your own 2 feet. Just look see for yourself ...should we have bullies??-- Moxy (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, as I don't wish to see us zap editors who haven't been vandalizing articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless every editor, pro and con, who has displayed obsessive behavior over the ongoing and deeply counterproductive infobox war is also topic banned. That being said,  Moxy should definitely knock off the gloating. User:Cullen328<b style="color:  Let's discuss it  05:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Oppose topic ban of Moxy support topic ban of User:Cassianto Appears that we have ongoing issues in this area. Here we have User:Cassianto closing a discussion in which they were the main person involved and in which they have taken a strong position. User:Dr._Blofeld also appears very much involved. Looking at comments by Cassianto like this "I don't know if you're meaning to be an insufferable little prick, or if you're just drunk or on drugs. Whatever it is, I suggest you go and have a lay down somewhere and decide which one it is." I am; however, thinking Cass might need a topic ban from this area. Will start a new section for that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually not true on my part, I was ignoring the conflict on the Kubrick talk page and I've been very careful not to personally attack anybody or get heated. I wouldn't have brought this up if it had just remained a dispute on Kubrick's talk page. I just thought Moxy's comment showed the real malicious intent behind infobox disputes which is wrong. It's only since another RFC has opened that I've simply questioned the legitimacy of the infobox and asked them why they think it's an essential feature.♦  Dr. Blofeld  10:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how the decision was made, but Gerda (and perhaps others?) has a two-comment limit on infobox discussions. Perhaps if we had a bit more of that for the more obsessive and WP:BLUDGEON-y commenters? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


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


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


 * <font color="#19a0fd">S <font color="#66c0fd">n <font color="#99d5fe">o <font color="#b2dffe">w  <font color="#d4143a">let's rap 18:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


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


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


 * However, none of that in any way prevents the community from applying the usual consensus process for widescale policy (that is to say WP:PROPOSAL) from forming new style and content guidelines which govern particular content. We do that constantly, and community consensus still trumps local consensus.  So if the community is fed up enough with this nonsense, we absolutely can amend MoS with more concrete guidance regarding when infoboxes are (or are not) advised, mandated, or prohibited.  And I daresay we're overdue to take the issue on and put an end to this years' long disruption and frequent pettiness. <font color="#19a0fd">S <font color="#66c0fd">n <font color="#99d5fe">o <font color="#b2dffe">w  <font color="#d4143a">let's rap 01:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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

I was ignoring the Kubrick dispute, I only brought this up when I saw Moxy's remark which just shows you the malicious intent when infobox discussions begin, people enjoy seeing Cassianto and others get annoyed. I can tell that there is a group of people who enjoy pulling the string on this, so it's a confession really. Moxy's comments were bang out of order, whether he has serious issues in RL or not. He is a frequent commentator on infobox disputes and such an attitude is deeply problematic for the site if proposals to add infobox are largely motivated by wanting to wind others up, so what else am I to think? I'm not prepared to see this happen time and time again and Moxy grinning sadistically behind his computer screen when it kicks off. Rexx, it's reached a point that I no longer want to contribute articles like Kubrick and Sinatra because I have to deal with all the nonsense and trolling that comes with writing the big articles. You may support infoboxes, but these disputes create a massive problem for editors and the stability for the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, come off it, Dr. Blofeld. There was nothing in Moxy's comments that indicated malicious intent, let alone anything like a "confession"—nothing more than frustrated off-the-cuff smartassery, and it wasn't even during any of the discussions.  It's especially eyeroll-inducing when you use stuff like this as your "evidence" .  Just cool off and withdraw this before the mood swings further into WP:BOOMERANG territory. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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


 * At most, Moxy said he enjoys watching some other editors spin their wheels (and I rather expect from the context and exact wording that he was speaking idiomatically rather than expressing actual mustache-twirling glee). Is it counter-productive / inconsistent with the spirit of collegiality for Moxy to express a sense of amusement here, even in jest?  Yeah, surely.  Is it a violation of any policy/community standard or anything worth exhausting community attention over at ANI?  It's clearly not even within miles of that.  Again, I have to agree with others who have already commented here, I think you should drop the stick on this one before you release the substantial potential of a WP:BOOMERANG.<font color="#19a0fd">S <font color="#66c0fd">n <font color="#99d5fe">o <font color="#b2dffe">w  <font color="#d4143a">let's rap 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban User:Cassianto from discussions of infoboxes
They do not appear to be contributing positively in this area. A couple of recent issues:

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

2) Closing discussions in which they are the primary person involved such as and

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


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

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

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


 * Support for the same reasons I brought an amendment request to ArbCom involving Infoboxes as well as previous issues with Cassianto's Civility as brought to ANI. This is not the first time we have been here.  It seems like Cassianto goes in and out of retirement to avoid admin action based on the prior ANI incidents.  It's time we take action against the incivility. --  Dane  <font color="#00AC1D">talk  02:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I go "in and out of retirement" because of people like you. I fail to see what benefits you bring to this project at all.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   10:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

So Moxy's actions and comments are perfectly acceptable because they aren't about where you live and are favoring infoboxes but pitchforks and torches are needed for Cassianto? If the ARB requests had worked, perhaps we wouldn't be discussing any of this at present. We hope (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not made any type of comment regarding Moxy's actions. My response is only regarding Cassianto based on ' section which I noticed while monitoring my watchlist.  I agree with you - if the Arb's had taken action, the discussion here would likely not be happening. --  Dane  <font color="#00AC1D">talk  03:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't favor zapping editors out of discussions. No vandalism, no banishment. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose one-sided, Moxy appears to be out to bait people, although it is hilarious that someone claiming to be "educated" would write something like Most likily becasuse there better educated, thus have a better ubderstanding of ... Pot, meet kettle. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless we are about to start zapping all the infobox warriors on both sides. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above, not impressed by the "Canadians stick up for Canadians" approach from Doc James either and refusal to accept that it is wrong for an editor to enjoy seeing conflict.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The way to stop Cassianto from boiling over is to stop baiting him. People unaware of the infobox background (which has been a running sore for years—see case) should not attempt quick fixes. The tactic used by pro-infobox people is drip-drip-drip with baiting. That should not be rewarded. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How would people unaware of the infobox background know not to jump in and add one in good faith? Whenever this happens it should be a simple "ahem, please see the history." Instead what we're getting is "sad and desperate" and "delusional bullshit" and being told to "fuck off." Mr Ernie (talk) added this comment at 09:52, 4 January 2017.
 * They don't know, you're right, that's why I'm courteous to them when they first add an infobox. Diffs? The trouble comes when they don't like it and they then troll me and drama monger everywhere where they see fit.  Believe me, I'm not at all liberal with my "fuck off"'s, and only use them when the occasion arises, and in particular, when they troll my talk page and then drag me here. I will not stand for angry IP's who sock their way about in order to get what they want,  or people who refuse to come to a compromise based upon their own POV. The comments you quote above are steeped in background dressings; Mabbett has restrictions not add info boxes, and Ho has restrictions not to stir up trouble, so please do your research first. Oh, and, please try and sign your comments. I know it's a bit embarrassing being attributed to them, but for someone who's been here for 10 years, you really should know better.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not embarrassed by what I write, and I don't appreciate that insinuation. It's quite sad to see an adult behave the way you do, but I can't say I'm surprised. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm a child. But hey, thanks for the slice of irony there; victim-crying for something I've said while in the same sentence, patronising me with something you've said. Are you a Canuck too? I only ask because if you are, then congratulations, you've just been ironic! If I've learnt anything over the past 36 hours it's that the Canadians don't understand irony. And as for being sad! Well, what's even more sad is someone whose been here for 10 years and  not even managed to complete 800 edits. Imagine being embarrassed 800 times?   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


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


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

Odd edit summary
SeeTalk:Riemann hypothesis. In IPv6 editor used an obscene edit summary. This was on 20/12/2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.119.123 (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ANAL SEX is hardly going to cause a riot or need revdel etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Some IP's can be a real pain in the arse, can't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well put. But this one seems to be intentional about that. Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * More to the point, this seems to be a deliberately inappropriate edit summary by a vandalism-only IP. It's not that it's offensive to some, rather it's that an edit summary of Donald Duck would be as meaningful (not), and the pattern is such that it's a good guess that the attempt at offense is deliberate, testing the limits. Their edits to date have all been reverted and included a block deletion of other editors' signed comments.  If this persists action should be taken. Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's this as well, but all of that seems to have blown over. I never figured that the Riemann zeta function would lead someone to consider anal sex (in all caps!), but you know, the Lord moves in mysterious ways. At some point I suppose we could consider semi-protection, but let's hope the editor is finished. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have clearly never dated a kinky mathematician. Reimann's work always leads to paving the ole dirt road. Don't even get me started on what happens when you start doing Lorentz transformations... MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the joke about a constipated mathematician...RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My, what a big delta your scalar field has... MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did someone say Ream-Man hypothesis? Yuk, yuk! (On the odd chance any of you perverts haven't seen this: She became tensor and tensor...)  E Eng  21:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This particular pervert had not seen that. So thanks :D MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And for you computer scientists...  E  Eng  06:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've revdeleted the edit summary as disruptive material. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call. While we should have regard for NOTCENSORED, nor do we want to become a showcase for toilet humour... not because of any POV against it, but just because it's a distraction that could easily grow if not discouraged effectively. Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For your future reference WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm in trouble.  E Eng  05:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll visit you in gaol... would you like me to bake a file into the cake, or would you prefer a dildo? Andrewa (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 😳 Um, I think I'll just take the opportunity for some quiet contemplation and self-improvement. Thanks for asking though.  E Eng  06:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifically, not censored for "content". A random vulgar edit summary does not qualify as content. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, very good point as was the more general one by BYK above. But I think the spirit of the policy is, we shouldn't revdel a contribution just because of a vulgar edit summary. The letter may not cover this but I don't think it needs to. We have better things to do, and to do so just risks feeding the trolls anyway. Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you may have misunderstood NYB's comment above. I read it to say that he rev del'd the edt summary, not that he did anything to the edit itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did misunderstand... I confess I didn't realise revdel was quite that surgical (having never used or requested it myself).
 * And it's an excellent use of it. It seems to me to satisfy WP:CRD criterion #3 Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This might even be a good example to list on that page. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Unfortunately, would be the only possible rangeblock (see the last two IP's that I've listed above), which is very wide. If any admin feels comfortable performing that kind of block, then it may be need to be done in order to prevent further disruption. Thanks. 172.58.40.158 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See the chart below, not the correct range...
 * Actually, my rangecalc suggests that can (probably) handle it. --  The Voidwalker  Whispers 01:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but which calculator do you use to calculate that? I just said /32 because I know that typically IPv6 rangeblocks are either /32, /48, or /64, didn't know that there were others in between... 172.58.40.158 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The tool I use is built into a private interface. I'm not actually sure what the equivalent is. However, rangecalc seems to work similarly. -- The Voidwalker  Whispers 02:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Given that it's a pretty wide range and the vandalism is so specialized, maybe an edit filter would be better? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe an edit filter would be a much better way to solve the problem. Also, pinging Samtar and MusikAnimal, as they may be able to take a good look at this (and possibly create an edit filter). 2601:1C0:101:4626:159C:184A:6A69:7B89 (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Working on this at Special:AbuseFilter/821 &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  23:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles created by proxy?
I noticed that and  made very similar edits to Inonotus obliquus, that their editing also over overlapped on the topic of Akwa Ibom State and that one of 's articles - Richard Zoumalan looks like the result of paid editing. I therefore asked about socking and paid editing.

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

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


 * Please when i meant "Most of" i meant edits and page(s) created. Recently i started a WikiProject and i believe during the process i have created pages,categories and templates. Margaretver (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the link for content submission and every now and then we do Sponsored Ads on Facebook and Instagram to help promote the page in some targeted regions a  Margaretver (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


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


 * The first edit cited above by Alexbrn is this one by Margaretver. In it, Margaretver provides for the preexisting assertion
 * Though, according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, "no clinical trials have been conducted to assess chaga's safety and efficacy for disease prevention or for the treatment of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes".
 * an additional source, viz:
 * and as an edit summary for this, writes:
 * added refs to medicinal research
 * added refs to medicinal research


 * I must confess that I haven't read the page to which Margaretver links: it's prohibitively prolix and badly written. What do I mean? Well, its first sentence [?] reads:
 * Deviating for a moment to the Botanic fact that Mushrooms, in general, are developing higher contents and more complex healing substances than other medical plants.
 * So it starts by "deviating", has no main clause, has a bizarre use of the progressive in its subordinate (and only) clause, and has the capitalization of a twelve-year-old.


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


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


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


 * When i say "WE" am talking about the 2 people in my department assigned to expand or add contents submitted via that page, both Nigeria related and non Nigeria related. I sincerely had no bad intentions when adding the link, neither did it occur to me it was spam or might be spam. Since the link seemed to be referring to "Chaga Mushroom" as is the significance of the page i added the link. That was a big oversight on my part and i apologize.  .... added at 00:28, 6 January 2017 by Margaretver 
 * So to clarify: there is a department (of a company, "Premium Herald"?) with two people who are taking content they receive from third parties and transferring it onto Wikipedia? Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A department setup to add mostly Nigeria related contents which might may meet notability guideline. Margaretver (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

TLDR Close this bullshit and help them or clearly point to where they can get help because they are not doing anything wrong and they are trying to do great and beneficial things.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're okay that (say) a banned user could use this to get stuff into Wikipedia? And you're okay that there is no mechanism to ensure the permissions to the content are known? Or that it's not paid content? And that in practice this has ended up with dodgy content? Alexbrn (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * More people need to start doing this in third world English speaking countries. I have no more reason to believe that they are being paid to edit wikipedia in a certain way than I do to believe you are being paid to edit in a certain way. Dodgy content? Yes, yes, there content looks almost as if they have been here for less than 30 days.. Oh wait they have been. They provided an unreliable source which is actually common to new editors. You ask those questions but I could apply most of them to you because they are unfounded and baseless. The world around you is spinning. Here are two articles for you Internet.org and Wikipedia Zero. Wikiedpia is actively trying to expand its access. Nigeria is one of it's target countries. This user and what they are trying to do is beneficial to that. In the end this user could be a detriment and it maybe necessary to ban them. Right now this isn't the case. Right now they deserve to be given an opportunity and every possible assistance to acclimate to wikipedia. Because in the end they could be a damn fine wikipedia editor and very beneficial to this project as people across Nigeria gain access to it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lots of high-horse waffle there; the aim is not to shut down the editors which is why I'm asking for input here. However it seems to me there are problems here with regard to the ToU. Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a number of possible issues. They work for a online newspaper. The online newspaper takes requests to edit wikipedia. Do they receive payment for these edits? Do they make these edits during their work schedule and if they receive an hourly wage can this be counted as paid editing? Either of which as a yes would mean they need to make a declaration. Material submitted to them, what's the copyright status. If someone write the article or a portion of it and submits it what's the copyright status? There submission page should for example have some fine print that says something similar to By submitting content, you agree to the Terms of Use of wikipedia, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.. All properly linked so that the users can read what they are agreeing to. These are certainly things that should be looked into so that everything is above board. I'll see if I can find out about the paid part.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how an article like Richard Zoumalan (which looks like a classic paid-for piece) came to be added to Wikipedia. By email submission? Alexbrn (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no clue. I'm not sure if Inimfon is the other editor that is working with Margaretver. I do notice Margaretver action was to place a BLP tag on it. At a glance Richard seems to be a notable person. You note it's fluffy and I note that its short. The only detail I know for sure is an otherwise new editor created it. You have the same details. If he is the other individual working with Margaretver then it seems that they may benifit from some help acclimating to wikipedia.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for review of my admin action regarding Monique Alexander
Pursuant to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography, I restored Monique Alexander on the basis that the subject being inducted into the Hall of Fame for their field, combined with an unusually high level of previous coverage from outside their field, makes this a fairly obvious case. The title hasn't been salted, and the article could therefore be created anew based on the subject's current state of notability. I would have taken the same action if a request had been made at WP:RFU, as was contemplated in that discussion. An editor has objected to my undeletion of the page, and I would like to know if I have overstepped here. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, I tend to be fairly deletion, but I think this meets the criteria. I remember a film she starred in, Play Time, being shown on UK mainstream terrestrial Channel 5, although admittedly that was back in the days when the channel's philosophy was "football, films and f**king", although the latter was always tasteful(?) soft core <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  16:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Jimfbleak, Monique Alexander wasn't in that film. IMDB and other sources say the actress you remember was Monique Parent. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an urgent ANI matter? Can't you just have asked a fellow admin for a second opinion?  E Eng  17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hard to do that without being accused of cherrypicking the fellow admin you ask. bd2412  T 17:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This board is way, way to crowded with minor stuff. If the complainer wants to take it to some appeal, let them.  E Eng  17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus I think WP:AN would have been the better place. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're fine. WP:DRV is not appropriate for this process as no one is saying that discussion was improperly closed. This is a recreation of an article, informally asked for by Wikiuser20102011, who brought up new content and sources, potentially satisfying notability concerns. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course this situation is covered by WP:DRVPURPOSE#3, and similar matters are routinely brought before DRV. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


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

User:Timmyshin
User:Timmyshin is making hundreds of high speed edits (without a bot flag) in violation of the Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality guidelines. I politely informed them that they were violating the guidelines and asked them undo their edits. They said they were aware of the guidelines and had no indention of undoing their edits. I then politely asked them to stop making such edits. However, they are continuing to make such edits in violation of the guidelines. Specifically, they are using gender-based categories as diffusing categories rather than non-diffusing categories and also creating numerous such gender-based categories that should not exist, per the guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For anyone unfamiliar with why we have these guidelines, please do a search for "Categorygate". Kaldari (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If "Categorygate" refers to this, then creating male writer categories and moving their articles out, which is what I've done today, reduces the controversy. Timmyshin (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * FYI: The user was warned by an admin and appears to have stopped. Kaldari (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For your info, the thousands of articles in Category:Canadian short story writers, Category:Indian short story writers and the likes were moved several months ago by User:Bearcat, User:Roland zh and others from what I can see. I have discussed these categories before, have you talked with anybody before you moved every article out of Category:Belizean women short story writers and others and tagged them for deletion, Mr/s. Polite? Timmyshin (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, given that I was pinged I'm going to clarify that Timmyshin has misinterpreted what I and Roland did. In the case of Canadian and Indian short story writers, the parent categories have indeed been cleared of individual articles — but that's not because of the gender categories, it's because the short story writers have been diffused by century (i.e., , etc.) If somebody wants to create parallel by-century categories for Denmark, that would be permissible — but as of right now they don't exist yet, so Denmark can't be treated equivalently yet and the non-diffusingness of the gender categories still controls the parent until such time as and the like actually exist. Bearcat (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense. I can create Category:20th-century Danish short story writers and their equivalents, that's no problem at all. Timmyshin (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple inappropriate non-admin closures by User:AKS.9955
Several multiple-editor, longterm and ongoing discussions have been raised with User:AKS.9955 since October June 2016, despite that, he still continues to ignore Non-admin_closure point #2. User:AKS.9955 just non-admin-closed controversial Kingsley C. Dassanaike AFTER having been warned about the consequences of his actions here, here, here, here, here and here. Years ago I had my rollback taken away, don't much miss it, but it sets me to thinking, can someone have non-admin closure rights taken away? If ever there was a candidate, User:AKS.9955 is the poster child. A trout will not make the message stick at this point.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AKS.9955&diff=prev&oldid=758304901
 * diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AKS.9955&diff=prev&oldid=758276535
 * That would be a topic ban. The criticism to his response to the criticism at DRV followed by closing a relist that had no further comments makes me think this might be the way to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * AKS seems to be trying to declare Bronze Wolf winners automatically notable by fiat, and I do not agree with that at all. These AfDs have been largely dominated by scouting enthusiasts, and it's well known that Wikiprojects often try to drive notability requirements for their topic right down into the basement. Also have to say that I'm uneasy about OP contacting only the DRV participants who criticised the non-admin close. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I contacted everyone involved in the DRV, what are you talking about? There's no "Scout-wing cabal" going on here, I'd rather put the issue to the test openly.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so, you skipped Lankiveil for instance. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  09:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Elisa Jordana (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Raj Barr-Kumar (2nd nomination) are both examples of AFD discussions that AKS.9955 closed as "keep", when in my opinion it would have been better to have closed them as "no consensus". Does a lack of consensus make them a "close call" or "controversial"?  I suspect that it does.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is already a DRV for that article.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, we know that. This is an ANI to curtail the behavior.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that often really. To be 'no consensus' means that there was no real winner in either votes or strength of argument. A lack of consensus is easy to spot. Its harder to judge a consensus when you have a stronger arguments on one side. As a no consensus and a keep at deletion discussions are the same result, its not a huge reason to overturn it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RE Elisa Jordana - the strongest argument there was from Kaisa who voted keep based on her individual accomplishments, while being minor in themselves, scraping into notability. The difficulty with people who write *for* reliable sources is that they often dont have reliable sources who write *about* them.
 * The second was *obviously* a keep. Being nominated anonymously via OTRS and filled with IP meatpuppets. Apart from Tiptoe, that AFD was entirely suspect. Even the nomination itself was filled with opinionated accusations of wikipedia editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Speaking to what I've been involved in:


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

Having said all that about the current situation, and without comment as to previous inappropriate closures, I support a time limited topic ban from closing AfD discussions. Making mistakes and misinterpreting policy/guidelines is not a high crime. Editors do it all the time. That's what discussion is for. But a complete unwillingness to consider that you may have made a mistake, a preference to continue the same behavior even while under community review, and a willingness to drag the community through both DRV an ANI rather than quietly defer to an admin when issue is raised (even if you are right and even if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety), make the user's contributions a net negative for the project in this area at this time. They can come back after a while and demonstrate that they can do better. Timothy Joseph Wood 11:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Leslie Mitchell AFD was never going to be closed other than keep. We have an article on the award they recieve and the keep voters cited ANYBIO. As the major oppose was 'getting that award doesnt make you notable' which is a *terrible* argument given there is no way you could AFD the wolf award, it is unsurprising it was a clear keep with both the number and quality of arguments on the keep side. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether it is clear keep is irrelevant to the fact that a closing rationale of Winner of Bronze Wolf Award award, making him notable. has no basis whatsoever in policy. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ANYBIO section 1 is directly relevant to awards. He could have worded it 'Keep voters have stated subject has received a well known and significant award and oppose voters have failed to refute this' but at that point you are just quibbling over wording. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And meeting ANYBIO 1 is meaningless if the individual in question does not also meet GNG, and the only significant coverage of them is passing mention of the award, which itself cannot be assumed to confer notability. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And regardless making an inappropriate NAC is inappropriate even if the call was correct. Making an involved NAC is still involved even if the call was correct, which is the actual point of this thread, and not hair splitting over notability "criteria" which itself emphasizes that it does not confer notability. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * People who have been considered to satisfy the notability (ANYBIO) guideline for people are considered generally to pass GNG. As both are notability guidelines, neither takes priority, nor are people required to satisfy both guidelines. But I see now you have moved onto claming they were INVOLVED. On what basis were they INVOLVED? 16:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See my original comment. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing multiple AFD's in the same topic area does not make one 'involved'. Being 'involved' means having a conflict of interest, or strong feelings in the area. Merely acting in an administrative capacity (closing a discussion falls under this) previously is explicitly not 'involved'. Have they been involved in content disputes in the scouting area? Do they have a 'SCOUTS ARE AWESOME' template on their userpage? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, especially when it was explicitly pointed out that his first close was problematic and immediately reopened and it should have been very obvious that the AfDs were related. Being involved doesn't mean AKS is involved with the Scouting movement, but rather he was "making a point" that the Bronze Wolf award is notable - something that the community has not agreed on. -- HighKing ++ 17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is indeed far from the first time, eg: this. Things do not seem to be improving. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a growing trend over the past 2 years for non-admins to close more AfDs. I can only assume this is because people who would have become admins 10 years ago can't now due to rising standards, so more of a blind eye is turned to NACs. A similar situation here resulted in a lot of discussion, but no agreement that the AfD closing itself was bad. Having said all that, if AKS is making too many bad closes, he doesn't clearly have the confidence of the community, and should stop it now before he gets a topic ban. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also this recent NAC which he closed literally the next edit after being at DRV . Given, the article was short and it could be done from history so there wasn't really much difference, but closing an AfD as 'redirect' when no single person had !voted that way at AfD shows a lack of judgement in my mind. Especially given that this editor had just been at DRV, which should have been a hint that treading lightly with NACs would be a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, this fellow speedily redirected Hindoo. See my: post on his talk page.  That ethnic slur page had been around for five years, in its current form.  Another editor, without any previous discussion on its talk page, or on WT:INDIA, proposed taking it to AfD in an edit summary, part of a back a forth with another editor, and a bunch of clueless Wikipedians (who didn't understand what the page was about) all agreed that it should be redirected to Hindu.  All this happened during that time of year between Christmas and New Year when we are all watching with the eyes of a hawk.  How do I restore the valuable content that has disappeared?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus at that AfD was pretty clearly merge, and it was done here . My issue was that closing an AfD as "redirect" when the word was never mentioned in the discussion immediately after having another NAC taken to AfD shows bad judgement on this area of work. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * :) Thanks, I didn't get that.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the close wasn't quite appropriate, and the hasty redirecting performed by the closer left the dab at Hindoo (disambiguation) stranded. I did clean that up, but I really didn't want to bother with trouting that user (I'm having my fair share of drama these days with the Saraiki dialect RM, and I really don't want to have more). – Uanfala (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni and Uanfala (talk), did anyone of you check the article Hindoo before it was merged (I mean the contents)?? It just had ONE LINE (Hindoo is an archaic spelling of Hindu, and one whose use today may be considered derogatory). That's not merge-worthy at ALL (as a matter of fact Wikimandia also recommended similar in the AfD article ). This is the problem, people jump to crucify others without even looking into all aspects. Just because someone is not happy with an NAC, does not make the closer a bad "editor and person" automatically. Arun Kumar SINGH  (Talk)  16:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , neither of us claimed you were a bad editor or person. Wikimandia's vote was Merge anything interesting with Hindu and leave redirect it was not simply "redirect". All the other editors !voted "merge" simply. I'm not trying to crucify you here. I'm just saying that a supervote that had no basis in the consensus right after getting taken to DRV on another NAC is probably not a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, lol. Perhaps you missed out on all the trouts, poster child and other adjectives I have been receiving. Anyway, that is not the point. I asked you, what was there to merge in the one line article?? Please thinks before you start accusing someone. I ask you to try and "merge" the contents. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  17:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * did the merge here . Your opinion is a valid one, and I'm not disagreeing with it. You should have !voted it rather than closing it, since there was no one else arguing your view at the time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you really thought that Hindoo was a one line page, then you are merely showing your ignorance. The meat of the page was in the references.  It was really an ethnic slur page, whose references spoke to the different forms in which (mostly) Indian-Americans experienced the slur in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.  Please don't be arrogant, when you are that clueless.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * <font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler, the article ONLY HAD ONE LINE; regardless of what you say here. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  17:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and you don't see SIX LINES of notes below it, not to mention the references, or did you not care to notice them? You don't think I know what I created five years ago, after having made 20,000 edits on Wikipedia?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article main-space had precisely ONE LINE (16 words to be exact). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And because it had only one line, now matter how much valuable content it has in the references, you think there is nothing of value in that page, and nothing salvageable? Nothing, then, in your view, deserved to be included in the lead of the Hindu page, as it now has been (courtesy user:Uanfala) along with the references?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said a word about the value of the content. What you don't understand is that it was NOT ME who decided to "knock-off" the article; it was an AfD discussion; I just happened to CLOSE IT. Grow-up and get it right. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you weren't implying it, then how does it matter whether it had one line or twenty? You are the one who got worked up about the one line (in capitals), insinuating that others did not notice it, including me, who authored it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am a bit surprised by the hostility and canvassing being done against me. Well, to discuss if a award is notable or not (which effects 300+ articles); what is the right place - a AfD or open a discussion in the article talkpage? There are multiple AfDs open on this subject, what do you suggest to do - keep all the AfDs open? Discuss centrally and then apply the consensus to all the related articles. Anyway, looking at the merits of the AfD alone, the article was surviving the AfD - period. It does not matter if someone likes it or not. There is very clear consensus for the article to be kept. I am NOT trying to declare any award notable; the community (Kintetsubuffalo, Jkudlick, Evrik, Naraht, Narky Blert and Timothyjosephwood) in the AfD discussion said that the award is notable. Then there where others who gave different rational for keep. Apart from the nominator, only one user voted for weak delete; please don't tell me that for closing an AfD, this fact should not be considered (I am not saying that only votes were counted). I hope people understand that the AfD closure's job is NOT to give his own opinion on the AfD but to arrive to what the community had decided, and I did exactly that. If people wish to discuss the notability of a particular award; please take the discussion to the relevant talkpage of the article - as far as this AfD is concerned, it was a clear keep and hence I closed it accordingly and stood by it. I would now like to reply to all the points raised in this discussion by all users;
 *  I declared an award notable : I declared nothing notable. I merely closed and AfD based on consensus built by the community. User:Kintetsubuffalo, User:Egel, User:Evrik, User:Bduke, User:Naraht, User:Btphelps, User:Narky Blert, User:E.M.Gregory, User:Timothyjosephwood and User:Alansohn are the ones who said that the award is notable; NOT ME. I just went by what everyone said.
 *  Claim that I ignored point 2:  As I said above, the community (User:Kintetsubuffalo, User:Egel, User:Evrik, User:Bduke, User:Naraht, User:Btphelps, User:Narky Blert, User:E.M.Gregory, User:Timothyjosephwood and User:Alansohn) had already decided towards a clear keep. Apart from the nominator, one user voted for weak delete. Everyone had given their reasons very explicitly and this AfD was not at all a close call and point 2 was not ignored.
 *  Zoroastrian Students' Association AfD : This AfD closure was non-controversial, was re-opened by Sysop Malcolmxl5 and subsequently the AfD was closed with no consensus. It appears that Kintetsubuffalo is deliberately posting only a part of the talkpage conversation and not the full conversation.
 *  Wayne Woodward AfD : As Davey2010 and Bonadea pointed out (something I had missed there), I had closed the AfD right after relisting it. There were no disagreements / warnings given (as Kintetsubuffalo dramatically puts it).
 *  This talk : was not a warning given (as Kintetsubuffalo dramatically puts it) and was just a discussion with NewYorkActuary.
 *  List of Australian middleweight boxing champions AfD : User:Papaursa did not agree with NAC, I stood by my decision. He said he will take it to DRV, he did not and the AfD maintained. Where is the problem with this?
 *  Leslie R. Mitchell AfD : Is the reason why we are having this discussion. This particular AfD is a very clear keep where no-one (apart from the nominator and another user) supported the AfD. More than 10 users opposed the AfD; where is the question of ambiguity??
 * What really surprises me is the hostility, name calling, aggressive behavior and judgmental approach. Without even looking at the facts, people have started talking about my behavior (see )??? Does User:Kintetsubuffalo not understand any Civility that he termed me as a poster child and I ask him to explain his comment ? As I was writing this comment, someone posted a message for another NAC done by me. Well the matter has been answered by RegentsPark, but the point is what am I supposed to do for all the "disgruntled" people who refuse to understand and accept that AfD can go against their wishes??  Folks, this AfD had clear consensus towards keep, I performed the NAC and am standing-by my decision in performing the NAC. The matter is already in DRV, let the community decide there. As far as the AfD is concerned, the community decided VERY clearly towards a unanimous keep and hence I performed the NAC . Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's not be too hasty, and end up losing a productive editor, his NAC actions were clearly in good faith, and I don't think anyone's disputing that. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re point 1, "Winner of Bronze Wolf Award award, making him notable" is AKS.9955's summary, which very clearly declares the award to be notable, even though this was quite a major point of contention during the discussion. It's not an appropriate statement for a NAC, considering the circumstances. If it is simply an innocent problem of language or communication, then it underlines the fact that maybe the editor shouldn't be closing contentious arguments. Sionk (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Timothy Joseph Wood 16:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Timothyjosephwood posted some logs up. Proves my point exactly about smearing, being judgmental and giving selective information. What he does not explicitly state is the outcome. Following;
 * Sweat Cosmetics DRV: Relisted with comment "Most contributors endorse the closure as such, because they don't consider the assessment of consensus to be in error, but they believe that more discussion would have been merited".
 * List of Australian middleweight boxing champions DRV: The DRV closing comments were "Keep" closure endorsed".
 * List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela DRV: This was relisted and finally closed with "no consensus". Another bureaucratic step. There were admins (like Lankiveil and RoySmith) who endorsed the close.
 * Speedy (musician) DRV: False information given by Timothyjosephwood. Result was "Endorsed - I seriously don't see the consensus in Keeping it but arguing over it is pointless and beginning to be a waste of everyones time, Best thing I can do is take it on the chin and move on!"
 * The Pioneer Trail (tour) DRV: Yes, the closure was overturned but it was because of copyright problems and had little to do with the closure. If you see the actual AfD discussion, you will notice that very experienced editors such as DGG, Shawn in Montreal, Kvng, Atlantic306 and Dane2007 voted very strongly for keep. So are we going to question there judgement now and call them names? As a matter of fact, no one voted for delete.
 * October 4 AN thread about Martin Sekulić: Again false information. This thread was never closed and the related AfD was left untouched.
 * Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip DRV: Yup. Closing comments; "Vacate close and relist. The discussion in this review is as much a procedural review of the close as it is a re-arguing of the AfD, and I'm not sure there's any good way to tease those apart. So, I'm just going to back out the AfD close and let it run for another week. Hopefully that will result in a clear consensus one way or the other."
 * Trust this clarifies. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  17:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is in part that even when you are right, you are right for the wrong reason. That is, your closure summary does not reflect the discussion. That certainly has been my experience of your NACs in the past and of your reaction to criticism of them. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support 6month -1year topic ban - In short the editor seems to continue to close controversial AFDs, Ignores editors help and advice inregards to AFD closures and last but not least they also refuse to reopen any AFD they've closed thus forcing everyone to open a DRV- Not necessary a bad thing however reopening them is I guess a way of saying "Yes I may have been wrong and will allow it to be reclosed" if that makes sense,
 * In short I believe they're closing way too many controversial AFDs and should probably take a step back for a while,
 * I admit I made the mistake a year ago of closing early (linked above) however I've listened to people and have changed ... unfortunately the same cannot be said for this editor who as I said seems to ignore anyone and everyone. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Davey2010, me and you clearly have a history here sp I understand the anger and vengeance you have. You really need to explain why this AfD closure was "controversial" and where was this taken up in DRV / AN? I don't recall this being discussed (pardon me if I missed). I have IN DETAIL explained every DRV / "so called controversy" above. You might want to update yourself on that. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  17:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you honestly believe my comment was all because we've had our differences then you don't know me very well! - I don't hold grudges and the way I see things is "the past is the past", I've had many arguments with people who have been reported here and some I have vouched for and that's despite our differences so no this isn't anything to do with anger, vengeance nor our past. The AFD should speak for itself - It was controversial, Just because you wasn't reverted it doen't mean it wasn't uncontroversial - Some may of thought reverting your close would've been pointless I don't know - Only those who participated can answer that but from an outside view it was a controversial close. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Davey2010, pardon me but I don't want to know you. And Yes, you are taking this as an opportunity to get back at me. Had you read what I have written above, I don't think you would have said what you said. By the way, you still need to explain why did you call that AfD closure "controversial". You said it, you explain. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your choice, Read what I've just wrote - I don't hold pathetic grudges, Because it was related to OTRS so therefore I believe it was controversial for that reason and that reason alone I've read your comments however I still believe a short topic ban is warranted (BTW If this was a grudge then wouldn't I have suggested it indef ? ...., Anyway I have no wish to argue over this and I'm currently sourcing an article which is more productive than us arguing. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment AKS.9955 has not even begun to accept any wrongdoing that he may have inappropriately closed AfDs. This is worrying. AKS.9955 is essentially saying that his closing of multiple articles is within the rules for NAC. Clearly - and you only have to see the comments here from editors who were all *involved* in the AfD's - he assumes a consensus too quickly and closes controversial AfDs and this is something that is not allowed under the rules of NACs. His judgement is being questioned, not the result. His defense of his actions above boils down to his belief that he reached the correct decision and he misses the fact that it is entirely beside the point whether an admin would reach the same conclusion or not. His subsequent conduct after his error was pointed out is the reason why the community has lost confidence in his ability to discern which AfDs can be reasonably closed by NAC. Also worrying, the longer-term pattern shows that he is not "learning" and in fact is pretty much unable to accept he erred. That is not good. I believe a (short) topic ban from NAC is appropriate to serve as provide him with a moment of pause to consider exactly the AfDs that fall under the remit of AfDs. I think a topic ban is appropriate, but I think it should be measured in weeks rather than months. A Topic Ban isn't meant to be a punishment, but rather an opportunity for AKS to have a rethink and figure out why the community lost confidence in him and then change that part of his conduct - and that is achievable (I believe) in a short period of time. If he doesn't learn, chances are he'll find himself back here again. -- HighKing ++ 17:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * HighKing, actually what is worrying is a user like you, who nominates an article for AfD, refuses to accept the closure and wastes time of so many people in DRV / AN and does not stop in blaming other fellow editors just to get an article deleted. I have gone and re-opened AfDs if the reason was apt and also have agreed with other editors in the past about AfD closures; I seriously don't want to waste my time in digging them out; but if need be I can. This was a clear keep and I will stand by my decision. You have a clear bias on this topic, which is not my problem. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, such spin and deflection! For the record, nowhere have I stated that I don't accept the result. Nowhere have I said it was a "wrong" result (even on that discussion you deleted from your Talk page) only that it was inappropriate for NAC. Nowhere have I "blamed other editors just to get an article deleted". I didn't open the DRV nor did I open this AN/I and ironically, both were opened by an editor that was looking for a "Keep" on the article. If you've gone and re-opened AfDs in the past, how many? And should that not have given you a clue (before we got to here) that perhaps you were doing something wrong? I reiterate - this is entirely about your inability to judge whether an AfD is appropriate for NAC or not. You are now compounding your poor judgement with inappropriate subsequent behaviour and personal comments. Your comment that you "stand by" your decision is very worrying. Perhaps Davey2010 is correct and your topic ban should be longer, not shorter. Editors who are unwilling to hold their hand up pretty quickly and acknowledge a mistake tend to learn slowly and need more time to learn. Endorse topic ban of 3 months. -- HighKing ++ 18:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * HighKing, when did I say that you initiated the DRV / AN? I did not. I said you waste time of so many people in DRV / AN. Let's not forget that it was you who started this discussion; thereby the DRV / AN (which by the way is a clear keep). You should know that AfD is not a discussion forum; if you want to discuss the notability of the award; take it to the article talkpage (which impacts 300+ articles). That AfD (standalone) was a clear keep and I will maintain it such. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. The only person who has wasted so much time is you, who can't seem to understand which AfDs are suitable for NAC and which are not. Read the rules, they're pretty straight forward. And if you're not sure, if someone comes to your Talk Page and points out that you've made a mistake followed by another editor, both of whom are experienced editors with more experienced than you, take the hint and accept you've made a mistake. If you had done that right at the start, you wouldn't have wasted the time of so many other editors at the DRV and AN/I pages. I've better things to be doing with my time. My advice to you is to step away from the keyboard because you are not helping yourself and you're now fighting with everybody on this thread. I don't think we're all wrong.... -- HighKing ++ 18:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support warning only - I got pinged to this conversation per my participation in the Hindoo AfD. I would like to remind admins that we wouldn't need NAC if there were enough admins doing their jobs on maintenance tasks. Instead we have a huge backlog and have to rely on NAC, and now someone trying to be helpful is being brought to ANI.  —Мандичка YO 😜 18:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 6 month tban I support a six-month topic ban on AKS.9955 from doing non-admin closures. I would have been fine with a one month ban, but to me it seems that he needs some time to cool off. He's accusing other editors of acting in bad faith because they disagree with his actions, and I'm not sure that a shorter topic ban would allow him to distance himself from the emotions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, let me ask you this; do you think that this AfD was not a clear keep? Just answer the question straight (imagining that you are fresh into this discussion). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I endorsed the close at DRV. I'm supporting the ban because of your closes after that and your actions fighting with people here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What fighting TonyBallioni? Are you suggesting that I don't even defend myself on an AN???? For example, in case of Hindoo (that me and you were discussing), I just stated a fact that the article just had 16 words in mainspace; where was I wrong in that? I did not find it merge-worthy; someone else did and he did it. Whats the big fuss and why the remark about "fighting"? People have been accusing me for all sorts of stuff, I think I hold the right to reply, clarify and defend myself. Put yourself in my situation and think; what would you do if you are constantly being accused - first on DRV and then here. As a matter of fact, I never wanted to pick an argument (mentioned that on my talkpage), but then I am dragged into this. A simple DRV (without useless blames) would have solved the problem. There was no need to un-necessarily accuse anyone, had someone just opened the DRV without prejudice and vengeance. Look, I don't like wasting time here; like everyone else, I too like making positive contributions. Two days back I started Gandhi family article with the hope that I will spend few hours writing it today. And what did I do today for 4 hours???? Edit this AN. Thats not what I came to Wikipedia for. Anyway, I am actually sick and tiered of this AN discussion and would like to end this there. People can say whatever they wish to; I will only step in if I feel it is necessary. What a HUGE waste of time by an AfD nominator who refuses to accept the AfD discussion result. You have a good evening ahead. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * As I was pinged, making a comment . Everyone makes mistakes and I don't think there was anything that bad as a number of admin have said they would have closed the main AFD in contention as a keep, missing the copyvio one was a mistake. Perhaps if AKS was requested to only close noncontroversial AFD in line with NAC where there are no prolonged discussions and keep / merge/ redirect are obvious. As someone has said NACs are filling a gap left by admin inactivity apart from some very hardworking regulars so more admins closing is needed IMO. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support XfD topic ban for either an indefinite or a finite duration. Thanks for starting this discussion - I was considering to do so myself. As an administrator who is regularly active at AfD and DRV, I have frequently noticed AKS.9955 making AfD closures and then reacting to challenges of them in a way that indicates a lack of the Wikipedia policy competence and social skills required to perform these functions. There is not a lack of admins willing to perform these functions, so banning AKS.9955 from them is a net benefit to the project because it avoids wasting the time of other volunteers with DRV discussions and discussions such as this one.  Sandstein   10:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support XfD closure topic ban of two months or so. This is clearly someone does not know what he's doing, and will not listen to people who do. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  10:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * User has apparently decided to retire from AfD per the header on their talk, but...have done so...even then...with such a flagrant misapplication of policy and principle that I think we're probably in safe territory to go ahead on a TBAN without worrying about the project too much: If people cannot be fair, appreciate my view-points, efforts, time, contributions (for maintenance), maintain WP:NPOV and are not free from WP:GEOBIAS, then I am not desperate to perform those tasks and waste my time. Timothy Joseph Wood  10:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, just noticed that. I'm still fine with a topic ban here. Not as a punitive measure but as a preventing further disruption measure. 3 months is a good minimum, though I would still support up to six. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Same. I wouldn't support anything longer than six. But, I don't want to get in a situation where they decide to unretire in two weeks, and here we are again. I think they can be an asset, but they have to drop the attitude. There's a reason why there are at times two or three posts weekly here or on AN along the lines of "please review my admin action," and that's because that's the appropriate attitude to have when you make high-profile decisions that affect the community, even if you think you're right.


 * I would point out though, that there is also the issue of the actual closes of the two boy scout award articles. I still think these should be at least reclosed, if not relisted for the sake of form, even if the decision is, and likely will be, the same. There seems to be an attitude at DRV that the issue should be decided here, as the "higher court", and so if it is not going to be decided here, the close should specify that they are delegating the decision to DRV. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My view as I try to expressed at DRV was that the behavioral issue should be handled here and the issue of the close at DRV. That is still my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 *  Opposed to ban, but support some kind of corrective instruction. I've been watching this evolve over an extended period of time, and it's finally come to a head.  To be honest, I think the DRV that precipitated this is absurd; I don't see any possible way the AfD could have been closed other than it was,  I think people are just using the NAC aspect of the close as a procedural excuse to overturn a decision that didn't go their way.  On top of that, there is an undercurrent of nastiness in many of the comments both in the DRV and here which has no place in a communal project.


 * All that being said, it's clear that there's been issues with 's NAC activities. Over and over, people have raised objections to his closes, specifically that he's been overstepping the bounds of how far WP:NAC lets you wade into difficult situations.  I personally don't think he's been overstepping the bounds.  It's obvious, however, that the broader community does, and we live by community standards here.  Once enough people have told you, I don't like what you're doing, it's time to back off a bit, whether you agree with them or not.


 * There is also a combative tone in many of the interactions I see on 's talk page regarding these AfDs. When somebody questions a close I've made, I bend over backwards to try to see it from their point of view.  That doesn't mean I'm a pushover.  More often than not, I'll hold my position, but I try to be as polite as possible about it.  I try not to have any emotional investment in any close I make.  If an objection to my close has any merit, I'm happy to revert my close and let somebody else come along and reclose it. If nothing else, it defuses the situation and keeps everybody happy.  I'm not here to prove anything, I'm here to make my own small contribution to one of the most amazing information resources on the Internet today.


 * Part of being an admin (and, performing NACs is effectively being an admin, whether you officially have a mop or not) is having a thick skin. People don't always agree on things, and you will often be put into the position of having to support one side or the other.  Closing an AfD is a prime example of that.  Don't get upset when people get upset at you.  Be polite, listen to what they have to say, and try to see it from their point of view.  Sometimes that means amending your closing statement.  Sometimes it means vacating your close.  Sometimes it means suggesting the person take it to DRV, but that really should be the last step in the process, not the first.  And, yes, sometimes it means (tactfully!) telling somebody they're just wrong.


 * You have to try really hard to be neutral, and be open to suggestions that you weren't as neutral as you would have liked to be. At one point in the DRV, AKS asks, Why cant I have my own opinion?  The answer to that is, you can, but not when closing discussions.  If you have any opinion at all about a subject, you either need to totally suppress it (not always easy to do), or just pass over the AfD close, and move on to something else.  There's plenty of times I start to close an AfD and during the course of weighing the arguments, start to form my own opinion about the subject.  When that happens, stop closing, and add your argument to the discussion.


 * This has gotten more long-winded than I intended, so let me get to the real reason I'm getting involved: This edit where AKS blanked the entire discussion of his actions on his talk page.   As I mentioned on the DRV, that's just wrong.  Inexcusably wrong.  The community process we use on Wikipedia is chaotic at times.  And inefficient most of the time.  And often frustrating.  But, it's the process we use.  It has served us well for 15 years.  Part of that process is a culture of openness and public review of our actions.  So, my recommendation is to censure  for blanking the discussion on his talk page, advise him to be more conservative in his future WP:NAC activities, be more open to constructive criticism, and in general be less combative in all of his interactions with his fellow editors.


 * -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I just looked at 's (since reverted by an admin) close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley C. Dassanayake.  The closing statement says, Multiple users agree on this AfD discussion that subject passes BASIC and GNG, yet there is not a single place in the AfD text where the words BASIC or GNG appear in conjunction with a keep argument.  Sorry, that doesn't fly.  I've struck my opposition to a topic ban.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm trying not do dominate this thread, at least any more than I already have, but I would point out that, as the person who opened the DRV, the original closure did in fact "go my way", at least as far as a keep versus a delete closure is concerned. So at least that much is not an accurate assessment of the situation. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In which case, I'm totally confused why we're even here. You agreed with the end result, but not with the person who got us to that, ostensibly correct, end result?  And because of that, we're arguing about banning somebody?  Makes no sense to me.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RoySmith: The multiple AfDs regarding recipients of this award are, in effect and mostly inadvertently, a way of stress testing whether the award is a good indicator of notability, probably leading up to an RfC on the issue using the AfDs (if mostly or all passing) as evidence to this effect. I'm not the architect or the chief proponent of this, but am keen enough to see that's where we're headed. Therefore, botched NACs interrupting this process, and worse, declaring that the award confers notability by fiat and contrary to consensus and policy, are disruptive on a scale that is much larger than an single article. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict Whether he made the right decision when closing AFD discussions is not related to the question, should he have been making certain AFD closure decisions. He is not an admin, so he is restricted to straightforward, non-controversial decisions.  Some people claim that some of the AFDs that he closed were ones that only an admin is permitted to close.  In addition, there are cases when people claim that process he used to make the decision was poor, e.g. counting "delete" statements, or that the closure summary he wrote was a poor reflection of the key points in favour of the decision reached.--  Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not part of this discussion, in good faith and concerns related to discussion closures, I agree with The answer to that is, you can, but not when closing discussions. If you have any opinion at all about a subject, you either need to totally suppress it (not always easy to do), or just pass over the AfD close, and move on to something else. There's plenty of times I start to close an AfD and during the course of weighing the arguments, start to form my own opinion about the subject. When that happens, stop closing, and add your argument to the discussion and some admin should raise concerns on WP:Merge, as we don't have strict rules of non admin closures in those discussions too. Thanks.Junosoon (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support tban on NACs - as a frequent non-admin closer myself, many of these closes look worryingly inappropriate. Combatively sticking up for those inappropriate closes, and continuing to make them after being warned, is really inexcusable. So even though AKS has stated that he will not continue to perform NACs and such, I agree with Timothy that a tban is a good idea. as to your addendum about "BASIC and GNG", the nominator does mention those as the main arguments for deletion, and as they are the most basic notability guidelines, it is not unreasonable that they would be met if the subject were demonstrated to pass a more specific guideline. But it is in any case not a very well phrased closing statement, which reads more like an argument than a summary. ansh 666  02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That he still thinks his close of the Pioneer Trail article was correct tells me that he should not be closing afds at all. —Cryptic 09:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, possibly. I nominated that for deletion, and I was nominator at the DRV, and I don't feel upset or annoyed in any way about this editor's actions.  What he actually did was close a near-unanimous "keep" consensus as "keep".  In the particular circumstances it was mistaken but hardly outrageous.  He has the opinion that his close was correct and he's welcome to have that view.  We're not a hive mind.  What he hasn't done is argue about it by starting further discussions or processes  he doesn't agree with the consensus but he's accepted the outcome. I also participated in most of those deletion reviews and I oppose a topic ban at this stage.  There's no pattern to these discussions he's closing  he's not cherry-picking a subject he's interested in.  He's genuinely trying to help and he knows how to agree to differ.  We can work with him.  I could fault him for being slightly too inclusionist and not quite attentive enough to significant arguments that don't get much discussion during the debate, but I could fault a lot of sysops for the same things. I propose that we give this editor help support and direction rather than a topic ban, and I offer to provide it in the form of an informal mentorship if this is acceptable to him and to the community.— S Marshall  T/C 10:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * His intransigence when approached, his poor decision-making in taking on inappropriate NACs, and his stated reliance on vote counts etc, together with sub-optimal close rationales, all suggest incompetence at this time. That he doesn't subsequently start discussions etc is because it isn't likely any AfD closer would then start a DRV. He's wasting a shed-load of other peoples' time and does not seem to have learned a thing regarding the error of his ways. An enforced break at least gives the community some guaranteed relief from this and gives him time to reflect. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support minimum of six-month topic ban and require editor to demonstrate greatly improved competence before the ban is lifted. Reyk summed things up perfectly, above, and Sandstein's more detailed explanation is quite convincing. Editor's grasp of speedy deletion principles has also been demonstrably inadequate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support minimum of six-month ban for the same reasons as listed above. Editor is incredibly combative when questioned on his closures and has overall been a very negative contributer.TBMNY (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I just want to endorse what User:RoySmith has said above. This user often gets the substance of the call correct, but often their communication leaves a fair bit to be desired.  Although they're correct in that I endorsed their most recent close to show up at DRV, this was more down to my seeing it as a waste of time overturning a "keep" to a different kind of "keep".  I'm not greatly encouraged by the fact that rather than listen to the criticisms being made here, they've decided to just turtle and go on the defensive.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Support ban These actions are always as a result of an editor refusing to listen to, and work with, the community. This editor's actions, particularly in this discussion, show that they must be forced to heed the community's advice.--Adam in MO Talk 03:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)