Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Someone is trying to name me.

The same person who forced me to use my IP to edit rather than my Username because he was telling everyone I am someone from the UK is trying to name me here. Are there no policies about not trying to dig private information up about Editors here? I am not a public figure, I am a private individual and I am entirely unknown to User:Неполканов and his meatpuppets who have an obsessive compulsive fixation on trying to identify who I am and getting me to reveal private information about myself by irritating me to pieces calling me names of different people. The only piece of info I volunteer about myself (because I wish to assert that I am not someone that my harassers once said I am) is that I am an Israeli. Everything else is my own business and I do not want anyone to try naming me here on Wikipedia. please do something about it. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

More edits from the User's meatpuppets trying to guess who I am. [1] [2] It is very obvious who is using that IP if you look at the history of my talk page [3] This sort of personal Harassment should not be allowed. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you self-identify as User:YuHuw (see [4]), why do you edit as an anonymous IP editor? Also, why do you feel the need to make abusive comments about other editors? For example in your post of 11:31, 14 May 2016:

• You described one editor (currently blocked) as "a rather repulsive person from the UK".[5]
• You describe other editors as "a team of meatpuppet sycophants hovering around him rather like the way flies hang around a dung-heap".[6]

Suggest block as WP:NOT HERE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Clpo13 please. Toddy1 is some kind of User:Неполканов puppet. I notified User:Неполканов but Toddy1 responds. This is his typical behavior pattern. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) This harassment has been going on for 5 months now already. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC) User:Неполканов himself is the one who led me to believe that the UK editor was repulsive in the first place by saying he is a pedophile. Then they called me that person. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Toddy1's responses here (and his anon IP edits on my talk page) are a perfect example of how he buzzes around people who have issues with User:Неполканов, almost like he is a paid bodyguard or something. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't he called Vaz as well? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

<personal attack redacted> 94.119.64.42 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging User:Bbb23 and User:Someguy1221, as this appears to be a continuation of an SPI that failed to result in a block for YuHuw some months back. If the IP claims Toddy1 and Неполканов are still making accusations of sockpuppetry against him/her months after their TL;RD sockpuppet imvestigation didn't go the way they wanted, then this needs to be looked into. Note that I'm not endorsing YuHuw's side in the various edit wars these users have engaged each other in. The only user I have seen in looking through it who in my experience generally behaves in a reasonable manner is User:Ian.thomson, and he agreed with Toddy1 on the content (although I have only briefly examined the dispute at Karaite). Whoever is right on the content, edit-warring is never good, placing the blame for edit wars solely on the side one disagrees with for the sole reason that one disagrees with them is even worse than edit-warring, engaging in a vindictive war of attrition against someone who embarrassed you months ago by not being the sockpuppet you wanted them to be is worse still, and trying to dox users one disagrees with is the worst of all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vadcat/Archive. As you can see above, YuHuw is still accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being puppets.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

So both sides have been throwing bad sockpuppet allegations at each other for months -- so what? In this thread the OP doesn't appear to have accused you of being a sockpuppet, but rather a meatpuppet/"paid bodyguard". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If people are accusing other me of making sock puppet allegations after the closing the of the SPI in late March 2016, they should provide diffs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You said, without evidence, that you were accused of sockpuppetry in this thread. You appear to be also attempting to link the OP to one or more named accounts, and defending several rev-del-ed doxxing attempts. I'm not calling anyone here a sockpuppet, so the burden of proof is not on me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the burden is on both of the IPs who have, for the past several months failed to prove that anyone was a sockpuppet of anyone. Since this is the case, I would suggest that if none of them can drop the stick, they should be blocked for harassment. As it stands however, 94.119.64.0/24 has an oversight block. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI: 87.69.184.128 no one is making you edit under an IP. You should not be forced to reveal this information. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If I do not edit using my IP they will call me a sock of that UK based editor which they do one way or another almost every single time I tried to edit any article since January. I am not accusing anyone here of being a sockpuppet I am not even calling for anyone to be blocked. I am simply asking that the edits of the editor I named whenever he tries to post a name which he hopes might identify me that those posts be redacted please. In fact I would appreciate the same being done to any editor who has tried/will try to do something similar. Wikipedia should be about content not about facing personal attacks. But some editors don't seem to have a clue on how to respond to content challenges except to harass those who challenge them. I have been harassed for far too long. Indeed I have lost my temper on a couple of occaisions over the months but I have always tried to make amends afterwards. But the constand hounding and attempts to identify who I am in real life are more than anyone should be expected to endure. I think I deserve at least one administrator to take my side and give me the benefit of the doubt once. Best regards. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You were cleared by the sock-puppet investigation. So drop the stick.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It was more 'Not Proven.' _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I repeat my request to have all attempts to try and guess my identity redacted by someone with oversight privileges. No one should suffer this sort of harassment. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. Voidwalker, this [7] is an example of the countless sort of cruel and baseless edit summary insults which forced me to use my IP to edit instead of my Username. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to guess your real-life identity, but I do want to know your WP identity. Are you YuHuw or not? Yes or no, please. If no, please explain this edit [8]. EEng 02:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This talk page section probably puts that connection in context. Blackmane (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes sir, I am YuHuw. YuHuw (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And you have self-identified as YuHuw in the links I and Blackmane have given. You should be editing as YuHuw, and if someone's giving you a hard time, that will be dealt with. This has nothing to do with your anonymity. EEng 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It seemed to me that if wiki-abusers are claiming all sorts of IP addresses as me then the only way I can prove that I am not UK based is to edit from my regular IP. When I edit as YuHuw they try to guess my name and you can see from the redactions on my own talk page they have been pretty abusive to me there too. I do not know how many real life people they are but at least I would like someone to redact the places where they have tried to name me please. I understand it is my right according to wiki outing policies isn't it? After that I would like my own edits which reveal personal info about me (e.g. my IP edits) to be courtesy blanked and I will return to editing as YuHuw not to be tricked again by such people. This is all I am asking. If the harassment still continues after that I hope thew same measures will be taken to protect my identity from those obsessive compulsive trolls. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry that I mistakenly thought that this edit by an IP editor was an edit by you. Please accept my apology. I wish you would only edit logged-in as User:YuHuw. When you edit as an IP people get you confused with another editor who edits in the same area as you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It is easy to say sorry, it is not easy to clean up the fall-out of your **FIVE MONTHS** bad-mouthing. BUT in light of your apology I am certain that you will have no objection to having all of your edit summaries and talk page comments which try to portray me as someone else (or as based outside Israel when you knew from the beginning where I am) such as these ones [9] [10] redacted. Let's not forget Toddy1 that you used [11] as a base to WP:CANVASS calling me Kaz countless times so that people who have had no interaction with me before whatsoever were influenced by your badmouthing me. You set out from the start in discussion with your employer (I am not saying money exchanged hands but this is clear employment) from the outset only had one objective and that was to convince everyone that I am someone I am not. Nevertheless, if you are indeed willing to DROP THE STICK and go for a NEW START along with having your comments redacted then I am very happy to accept your apology. I do not bare grudges and have been willing to start over with you countless times. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Provided you have no active sanctions, then WP:CLEANSTART is an option. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART would be an excellent idea to apply to all those who have been abusing WP as a by harassing me. Meanwhile my request to have those edits by people who have been trying to name or identify me in some way all redacted please. I am asking this in line with WP:OUTING. I can not speak for those accounts who have been harassing me, but if I understand what you mean by sanctions then I can confirm that I personally have never had any sanctions against me. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Although, naturally, Toddy1 thinks this ANI complaint is about him as always whenever the complaint is about Неполканов. I would like to bring attention back to the topic of this complaint which is this edit where User:Неполканов tries to name me. I would like it redacted please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

When someone who has an account deliberately chooses to edit as an anonymous IP editor, then he/she must take some responsibility for the consequences. It looks like sock-puppetry. I accept that User:YuHuw did not mean it as sock-puppetry. It has helped that he/she has made clear which IPs were him/her. If you edit as an IP editor, people will wonder which user you are. And some of the time, they will get it wrong.

I advise against a WP:CLEANSTART. It is sometimes very hard to distinguish between YuHuw's edits and Kaz' edits. I honestly thought they were the same person. However, there has been a sock puppet investigation, which cleared YuHuw, and established that they are apparently different people. If all the edits by the Israeli IPs that we believe to have been by YuHuw were by YuHuw, and none of the very similar UK IP edits were by YuHuw, one has to wonder who that person was.

YuHuw, please carry on editing - but please do so logged in as YuHuw, so we know it is you, not Kaz. And stop calling me a "meat puppet".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated above that you knew from the start I am not that UK based editor but tried everything in your power to portay me as him. You say one has to wonder who those non Israeli IPs were but perhaps some of them were from your team. You have not been cleared of meatpuppetry yet. Your continued stepping in to help the accusef only adds to the substantial evidence against you. As demonstrated above, you and your team (especially the person you always step in to fight for including here) continued to attempt to portray me as that editor until long after I started editing exclusively with my IP which is my right by the way and is easy to identify me as I always make clear this is me YuHuw. I am well within my rights to edit as YuHuw exposing my IP and will continue to do so until the redactions begin.

I will try again to get back to the topic of my complaint. Although, naturally, Toddy1 thinks this ANI complaint is about him as always whenever the complaint is about Неполканов. I would like to bring attention back to the topic of this complaint which is this edit where User:Неполканов tries to name me. I would like it redacted please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Where in that diff is there any sign of them naming, well, anyone? Blackmane (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

THE VERY FIRST WORD!!! YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If there is no one here competent enough to deal with this, is there a place to post to get the attention of genuine/real administrators who deal with WP:OUTING swiftly and effectively. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

See User_talk:YuHuw#Accusations. User:Liz who posted the message there, is an admin.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1's comment ^ is completely irrelevant. The association between my IP and YuHuw ID has never been hidden, see [12] long before the most recent WP:OUTING attempt which should under wiki guidelines have been redacted as soon as I requested it a dozen days ago. Even if I had only ever been editing with an anon IP and had no user account, attempted-outing is still attempted-outing and should be dealt with as all other outing attempts are dealt with whether the attempt is accurate or not. I am requesting Oversight admin to redact this edit in line with the WP:OUTING policy without any further delay please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING: "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." For help requesting oversight, see WP:Requests_for_oversight. Or read the pink box at the top of this page when editing. Mysticdan (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Potguru

We seem to have a bit of a problem with an editor that seems to not be here. The editor in question User:Potguru has been making controversial edits and moves. The editor has been asked a few times to slow down and to see what other think about the edits and moves but to no avail. Potguru has a very strict POV on the meaning of the word "Marijuana" and has been changing the word Cannabis to "marijuana" all over despite concerns raised. They have also moved articles with titles containing Cannabis to marijuana again despite concerns raised by many. They have also proposed invalid mergers and draft proposal for the purpose of content forking all based on one POV. Moxy (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I object to this characterization. I have discovered a number of articles that were incorrectly titled based in some cases on incorrect text and in other cases I cannot determine the reason but in every single edit I was careful to represent the cited reference which, in all cases where I made these edits, read "marijuana" instead of "cannabis". I have not made any war edits and in any case where there was some concern with my edit I made my case on the talk page and walked away while we await concensus on the matter. I also object to being thrown into this page without the OP following hte clear directions above which clearly state "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." Your comments were not on my talk page, but somewhere I could never find them [here] instead. If you have a grievance with me, please follow the prescription on this page and discuss it with me directly. You left my talk page with many unanswered questions. --Potguru (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So let me give some examples of this behavior....

• Moves despite concerns raised on talk page.

On each page where there was any controversy I brought the issue to the talk page. On each page where I have made edits my edits are clear and precise. --Potguru (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Proposed merger because they think Draft:Marijuana (cannabis) should be the articles title.

No, the reason for the proposed merger is that cannabis(drug) and cannabis(the plant) seem to be the same issue to me. Rather than controversially move or make a change I am asking for concensus, which is what we are supposed to do on wikipedia. --Potguru (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If this is what you believe then I question your competence to edit the topic at all. -- Moxy (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, where is this coming from? We were having a perfectly meaningful conversation about the meaning of the word marijuana and now you decide to attack me personally as incompetent? --Potguru (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an attack ... a POV statement that your not knowledgeable enough to edit this topic at this point in time. I have seen to much wrong guess work at this point to believe otherwise.-- 03:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You challenged my competence and presume I am guessing at things, that is an unwelcome personal attack. --Potguru (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misleading edit summaries despite no discussion actually talking place...just a notice of intent.

You are mistaken. I called for concensus on a merge of this article back in January. Consensus was no comment for or against and so I carefully merged the pages. Then another editor came in and undid all my work without comment so I largely undid his reversions in favor of the concensus version. (And I took a great deal of effort on my merge). --Potguru (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Editing an article to one POV despite the talk they were involved in about just this fact Talk:Marijuana (word)#Continuing conversation.

My edit on this page is consistent with other articles that talk about marijuana or cannabis. There was no nefarious intent in that edit, please assume my edits are for the betterment of the readers as they are --Potguru (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edits of this nature shows a clear preferences for a term despite being told otherwise User talk:Potguru#The official name on Wikipedia is Cannabis

Where is the notice that the official word for marijuana on wikipedia is cannabis? Again, my edits are consitent with the sources. There is no 420 "cannabis holiday", it is a "marijuana holiday". If there is concensus on this issue please point me to it because I do not see where we all came to agree that every instance of marijuana should be replaced with cannabis. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like this lead me to believe they are not actually reading up on the topic....as the term is Cannabis is clearly used as seen here and in the ACT.

As I said the move was and is consistent with the content on the page. If you have sources that talk about a "cannabis policy in Colorado" please share them, otherwise we must stick to the cited references because Wikipedia is no place for original work. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I did show you sources....enough is enough. -- Moxy (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, where did you show me sources that talk about a cannabis policy in Colorado? You showed me the definition of industrial hemp in Colorado, is that what you are referring to? --Potguru (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Lets quote the act that has been show to you a few times now and is the topic of the article " Colorado Amendment 64- In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product. -- Moxy (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Text of amendment 64 can be found here: http://www.fcgov.com/mmj/pdf/amendment64.pdf In the text, as I have pointed out to you several times, the defintion of marijuana is: "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS, OR ITS RESIN, INCLUDING MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE. "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS, OIL, OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEED OF THE PLANT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK, OR OTHER PRODUCT. I emphasise the second sentence to highlight why marijuana is not the same as cannabis... cannabis with less than 0.03% THC is hemp and hemp is not marijuana per the above definition. --04:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok I am puzzled then...your aware both text above that the term Cannabis is used then further defined by the terms MJ and hemp.....and that the article talks about both MJ and hemp but you think its best to call it " marijuana" when its clear cannabis is being used as the parent term in the act then sub-defined? Can you explain this logic to me pls. -- Moxy (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Puzzled? Perhaps we should continue talking about this then, rather that you suggesting I be banned because you do not understand what I am saying. I have been saying the same thing for days that marijuana (per the above definition and the original 1937 definition) is a portion of the cannabis plant and the remainder is hemp. That is what most of the articles say and that is what my edits are about. --Potguru (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what to do here....looking for input. -- Moxy (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oh vey, pot guru for sure. Suggest final warning for the editor to stop the nonsense or else a topic ban from all naming suggestions. That's been really nice and assuming there's a sensible person behind the ego there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review of the prior ANI discussion, skip the warning, propose topic ban on all content related to marijuana and cannibus for six months. If the editor shows that they aren't just going to bull-in-a-china-shop elsewhere, they can go back to that topic but the prior history shows little need for patience. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be specific about the "nonsense" you are referring to. --Potguru (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest topic ban now, enough with the warnings (which are being ignored anyway). Mlpearc (open channel) 02:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please give me an example of a warning I have ignored I am unaware that I have ignored any administrators warnings. I respect wikipedia policy which is why I must insist that the text of articles be supported by the actual citations used not some other unknown reason. --Potguru (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not insult our intelligence here. There have been tens if not hundreds of editors on these topics for years, either you believe you have some brilliant insights about how these things should be worded and your ego needs a check or you're just an jerk who's going to push whatever they believe regardless of other people but neither of which is helpful here. If you don't see a problem, then we should just block you right now and move on. You've already wasted more of our time than is necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Strike that. Slow down and learn the proper processes here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any edits since I started responding to this and my talk thread. I learned how to take a walk a long time ago, which is why I do not edit war. --Potguru (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Too bad you struck out the nail which you hit squarely on the head. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been chewed out enough over "Admin conduct" and incivility for calling people. I'm trying to be nicer although it ruins the bluntless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban as-well ....I see no end to this other wise ....no inclination at all they will change the behavior. -- Moxy (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy I'm surprised at this post on the heals of your statement "I think you think your doing the right thing" just hours ago. Please take the time to respond to my replies above. Your call for me to be banned would only serve to end any meaningful discussion of the term marijuana vs the term cannabis which you admitted just yesterday is an important discussion that we need to have. --Potguru (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is a topic we need to talk about.....but we are having trouble moving forward because we are dealing with you and your edits all the time. --Moxy (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If it is an mportant discussion we will have it. If we require you around to discuss it, it probably isnt very important. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what you hope to gain by attacking me. Please refrain from attacking other editors or assuming the worst about their intentions. --Potguru (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree re a formal warning and if no progress a topic ban, user seems to be only interested in cannabis. I thought his attempts to merge cannabis and cannabis (drug), two enormous articles, to be spurious. he or she is better off learning the ropes of wikipedia before engagng controversially wth ths topic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User has updated countless articles on various topics. User authored the original "Drumpf" article which was covered by major media (later merged into another article). You are hasty in your review, you should take more time to see what I have contributed to the site because your assessment is far too narrow. Your premature ending of the merge was also hasty, you seem to have a pattern. --Potguru (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We can talk about that merge if you like. You wanted to merge a huge biology article on the genus Cannabis with an even larger article on cannabis as a drug. After six editors opposed your proposal, with not one supporting, which we call a WP:SNOWBALL result, and after I asked you why you had made such an odd merge proposal, and with no justification for doing so in your opening comments, you admitted that it was to test consensus, ie you had no reasn for making such a proposal. So I would argue that the pattern and the disruptive editing is comng from you, and the fact that you are blaming me is part of the pattern. No other editor is supporting your comments re me but a whole host of editor are complaining about your behaviour on the cannabis articles. You seem to be attacking me in order to try to divert attenton from yourself. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see where I have attacked you at all. I have made clear that I think your edits are edit warring but I made my reasoning very clear on your talk page. It is more than clear that you act in haste, as you did to revert more than a half dozen articles I carefully verified and then you (willy nilly) reverted my considered edits. Have you even looked at the cited material in any of those articles? They all refer to marijuana, not cannabis as your edits would have us believe. --Potguru (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussions for reference. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this editor has been using WikiP as a WP:FORUM since, at least, the end of March. You can see various threads beginning here Talk:Colorado Springs, Colorado#March 2016 Marijuana Industry section content dispute. This is but one of several edit summaries where they reinserted info in spite of the discussion on the talk page pointing out the problematic nature of the edits. They have had the "WikiP ropes" explained again and again. I am not sure whether they will ever understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a WP:SOAPBOX. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Above editor unreasonably removed several posts about [marijuana] from Colorado Springs article until same editor was forced to follow concensus. We all agreed on specific text and that text is in the Colorado Springs article today. Marijuana is a huge industry and daily news item in Colorado Springs. But we came to consensus and that is where the article stands today with a short blurb about marijuana in the culture section. --Potguru (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice job on getting it backwards. You were the one inserting items against the consensus and the short blurb is what was agreed upon my the rest of us that were commenting on that talk page. This illustrates, quite well the reason that this topic ban is now being discussed. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually what I was doing was boldly editing an article. Then you would remove what I wrote because you thought there was no place in the Colorado Springs article for any discussion of marijuana. Then I'd write something else and then you'd remove what I wrote. Then we got other editors to look at the situation and once we all came to concensus the article was updated. Since then I added this unchallenged timely [edit]. --Potguru (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No remorse, no willingness to concede to work with other editors. Editor desperately needs a timeout, especially considering past trip to ANI. Definitely has a very specific POV agenda and WP:NOTHERE I personally think 6 months is harsh, everyone deserves a second chance, but the nonsense has to end. Lipsquid (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to accept concensus, as I stated clearly above. Why should I show remorse? I do not believe I am doing anything wrong by insisting every article follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. --Potguru (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think you have done anything wrong, then maybe 6 months is appropriate so you can use the time to figure out how to collaborate on Wikipedia. Lipsquid (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think if you study my interaction with MarnetteD on the Colorado_Springs,_Colorado article specifically you can see that I used the talk page to have a conversation with other editors and we achieved concensus, which was not what MarnetteD wanted. I think this incident demonstrated perfectly my willingness to listen, learn and consider others and concensus in my editing as I learn to work as a newbie in this complicated website. --Potguru (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would stop misrepresenting what happened. First, I wanted consensus to be reached - I have a long history of working with others in situations like this - that is why I took part in the discussion. Next, I was not the only editor to remove your problematic edits as can be seen here. Next, "after" consensus was reached you continued to ignore it with edits like this and this. Most of us work hard to achieve WP:CONSENSUS in situations like this - please do not misstate what happened then or now. MarnetteD|Talk 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOLD cannot be used as a carte blanche for POV pushing. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

These edits are not about my point of view, but about the sourced content. In each and every edit I've made "since march" I believe I have been extremely careful to make edits that follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If I have not, please show me that edit and I will immediately update it. If we all follow the same policy of making sure the articles reflect their sources and that the articles all have Wikipedia:Verifiability you will see my edits are all "correct". If an article says "cannabis" then the cited source must say cannabis but if the cited source says marijuana then the article body must reflect that. Unless there is some rule that we must always use cannabis in a sentence, even when such a use is wrong or unsupported by citation. --Potguru (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Far from calming down Potguru has come to my talk page accusing me of dsruptive editing, after trying to tidy upafter him and doing general linkng changes here. IMO this is just part of a pattern and that he needs to calm down or face consequences right now. He is complaning about my fixing some of his moves from cannabis to marijuana in article titles but he made those changes against consesnsus, and it is this ignoring consensus that has resulted in him being here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect you did not "tidy up", you reverted edits based on no concensus and in all articles you seem to have ignored the talk pages. As I clearly stated on your talk page I think your edits are disruptive and instead of reporting your activities here on this page I followed the policy on this page and brought the issue to your attention directly. Now tell me why did you change the text of articles without first following the Wikipedia:Verifiability or the Wikipedia:Article_titles policy? You just moved [| this page] from Marijuana in Maine State to Cannabis in Maine State yet the article NEVER mentions the word cannabis, instead all the references and text clearly state "marijuana". Your moving the page makes no sense based on the article content. Please explain. --Potguru (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was at cannabis for over a year, is based off Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction and Cannabis in the United States so I'm not sure how you can say there's a consensus for your move so a reversion is fine. I'd say your attacks are not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because a low interest article sits incorrectly for some period of time does not mean, in any way, that it is "right". There are a whole series of nearly identical articles all created by the same original author all at about the same time and almost all of them use the word cannabis incorrectly based upon the cited sources. What I did is go through the sources to verify the text of the article and low and behold the article text did not match the citation. The Cannabis in Kansas state is a really good example of a bad article. I went through and changed all occuranced of cannabis to marijuana (where they were wrong) and left the one occurrence of the word cannabis alone as it was correct. Then another editor (who is really angry about the issue) came through and reverted all my well considered edits. At almost exactly this same time I moved the article to the more appropriate namespace marijuana in Kansas State. So seeing the edit, rather than start an edit war, I posted very carefully on the talk page trying to achieve concensus. Then, without contributing to that conversation, RichardWeiss moved the article back to the former namespace in what I consider an edit war. (He later commented on the talk page). --Potguru (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Potguru, yu are completely ignoring that this thread is about you. And you didnt have consensus, I checked, as is clear here too. You dont seem to be listening. You need to go and edit other topics for a while until you calm down, I am not being threatened with a topic ban. And the fact that you are so insensitive to the threat you are facing isnt a good sign. If you make a complaint here about me it will be taken as part of your campaign of bad behaviour that brought you here and an insistence on not following advice by taking a break from the issue. This thread is about getting you to calm down and you are refusing and getting more worked up instead. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"And you didnt have consensus, I checked" editors are not required to have any concensus when moving an article that is not contentious. The reason I moved the page was that, at the time, the content did not support the article title and moving it was the best way to make sense of it. " getting more worked up instead." I am not getting 'worked up' at all. I am very calmly making my case. I do wish you would revert disruptive half dozen or so namespace moves you have made without a good reason to do so and with little to no support in the body of the articles to support your [hasty moves]. --Potguru (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Chill, man. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• You are misreading policy. You don't need consensus if it is not contentious, meaning a consensus would agree. In this case, you should have known that moving highly edited article titles is going to be contentious. If you really felt that no one would object to this radical change, then this calls your judgement into question, reinforcing the reason you need to be topic banned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose a topic ban for Potguru, it is not cool to disallow a Wikipedia editor to edit certain articles. Please be impartial and look through his edits and his rationale before you decide to jump on the bandwagon of whoever complains first. HempFan (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - I'm involved so can't act administratively, but there seems to be more than few over the years that want to war over the name Marijuana vs. the proper botanical name Cannabis, and Potguru has already been given fair warning. Cannabis is a busy topic and we don't need people who can't edit collaboratively editing them. Enough is enough. I would also note that voting to NOT support the ban due to not liking topic bans in general is pretty much a non-vote. This isn't about the politics of Wikipedia, it is about the behavior of ONE editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note There is a significant editing interaction overlap between Potguru and HempFan. Making no judgment on that overlap. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have filed this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potguru, i think there is quite a strong case. Potguru has made over 3000 edits in 4 months, which is a lot for a new user, and his early edits dont indicate a new user. Wouldnt surprise me at all if he isnt a new user. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Given their names, I wouldn't read too much into that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss and Dennis Brown: Funnily enough, it was that which encouraged me to investigate, Dennis  ;) Richard, I've commented at the SPI page. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

there is a distinctly cospiratorial 'us and them' interaction here, with borderline canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Pin _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Potguru seems to mean well, and it is quite surprising that the word "marijuana" does not appear in the lead, or almost anywhere, in the main Cannabis article, so I can see his frustration and confusion as to why some of the edits have been reversed and others do not perceive that some changes may be for the better. It seems that even direct quotes have been changed to remove the "m" word, which does seem to indicate a tilt towards accuracy on this editor's part. Potguru should take it slower, and maybe do an WP:RM at the 'Cannabis (drug)' page to create a wider discussion, which could help to explain his objections and hoped-for-additions. But a topic ban seems a bit extreme for an editor who, from indications, wants to expand reader knowledge on the subject. If everyone backs off a step, and Potguru takes his time, some of what he is concerned about may work itself out.Randy Kryn 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

However the Cannabis (drug) article does mention the word "marijuana" in the lead, and the drug article is 'hatnoted' on the plant page. Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

True, but the main Cannabis article does not although it mentions other plant-based uses and products. The point I'm making is that Potguru, too, was probably surprised at that and maybe went gung-ho in trying to add things like that in Cannabis pages. He does seem to have some good points, which is why my oppose on the topic ban (although he should be continued to be guided by the Wikipedia project members and not jump full-body into the changes he would like to see). Randy Kryn 14:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think he should be guided by WP project members and to follow collaboration standards and yet he blatantly says that he is right and that all other opinions on this subject are wrong and he won't stop changing article names. Then how can someone oppose a topic ban? What other choice is there if he isn't going to stop? Lipsquid (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: A topic ban for someone who's right and fighting against silly renaming of all cannabis related articles being renamed to Cannabis (insert use here), is wrong. That's why I oppose a topic ban. You have to understand that some editors, take Wikipedia seriously and do their best to keep other Wikipedia editors from ruining articles. Topic banning such editors from editing articles (or banning them altogether), is wrong, and well, it's Wikipedia's loss at the end of the day. HempFan (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"A topic ban for someone who's right"....and that is where I drifted off. Topic bans are not about who is right or wrong, they are about behavior that is inconsistent with a collaborative, collegiate environment. Everyone thinks they are "right", so being "right" isn't a license to behave poorly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Well if so, then the burden is on you and everyone else who want Potguru topic banned, to provide valid examples where he has been highly disruptive, because just voting yes to a topic ban doesn't count, it has to be substantiated with examples. From the little experience I've had with Potguru, he's been very collaborative, and totally unproblematic. I also oppose his topic ban for those reasons. Granted, I haven't seen much of his editing history, so it's possible I'm wrong, but from what I've seen, he's been totally professional, and that should count as far as I'm concerned. HempFan (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue at hand is about consensus, not burden. I didn't propose the topic ban, I have no burden. Each person participating has their own burden to look closely at his history or don't participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus, burden, I say potato, you say potahto... Consensus should be reached by providing valid examples, not opinion dropping based on, well, nothing? HempFan (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban Wait a sec. Why are the articles about Marijuana use/ laws in XYZ State being titled, incorrectly, as Cannabis use in XYZ state? This make no sense! If the sources say "marijuana" then so should article title. Readers are looking for the commonly used terminology, and this odd "cannabis" article title looks like some sort of censorship imposed by WP. Look at Cannabis policy of Colorado- marijuana is used throughout the article, and marijuana is used in the sources. Same with Maine State and Kansas Sate. "Cannabis in Maine State" sounds like it is referring a flora growing season, or some such. Is consensus required in order to reflect the sources and thus make articles accessible to the public?? Cannabis is the genus name of a plant, certain species of which are used to make drugs, (i.e. marijuana). Other species produce "hemp", the seeds of which I can purchase at Costco and natural food stores, here in the USA. The article titles should reflect the sources, please! Tribe of Tiger (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC) ( my mistake, see note below)Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the same problem that got us here in the first place...please read the legislation ...where is talks about Cannabis that is then sub-defined by MJ and hemp (be that right or wrong) ...why would the title only reflect one sub topic..only makes sense to use the parent term. To quote the Colorado act again In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product....the act then goes on to talk about what MJ is. its clear....Cannabis is the main term that is then sub-defined by its parts (or lets say THC levels) as MJ or hemp.-- Moxy (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, I apologize. I see your point (Well, I "saw" it with difficulty! Could you please not use the tiny letters? They are hard to read for us older folk) and have struck Cannabis policy of Colorado from my "oppose" above. An article about a "policy" is different from the articles about Kansas and Maine, to which I still object. Thank you for your courtesy and patience. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments 1) As far as I could find yesterday, all legal contexts in UK and Europe refer to 'cannabis' in its various forms, resin, herbal (ie 'grass') etc. I presume they do so as 'marijuana' is a less defined term (often used here to refer to the resin only, and more of a 'street term'). So there are consistency arguments for the more formal term, plus cannabis is the main term I believe used in medical contexts. 2) A lot of argument is going on about the definition used by 1 US state, that definition exists for the purposes of that specific legislation only. So long as the article is clear that this is the term used in the legislation, and how defined by them, it doesn't have that much bearing on how WE use either. 3) This ANI is about behaviour not when/how to use either word. There are mechanisms for resolving such matters, where ALL arguments can be put, and 'I/he is right', isn't a very convincing argument. Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - For the editing habits of this user, be them right or wrong, continued disruptive editing and WP:OWN are the issues. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or Final warning. Comments here and elsewhere strongly suggest this editor is more interested in pushing an agenda than working collaboratively. Some of his science seems muddled, but that is hardly the point. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban too passionate an advocate to work collaboratively. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban User has been advocating this change since their start here. That in itself isn't a problem, but once you stop being collaborative then it's time for a ban till you can demonstrate that you will start listening to other's opinions. Valeince (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Jytdog. BMK (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban For all the reasons stated above. Editor persistently creates confusion by POV's rather than contributing anything worth while to these articles.--Aspro (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This has gone on far too long --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• After some reading, also Support topic ban Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This is waaaay out of hand, just a temporary topic ban while the editor gets some time to think things over should do them well Anipad68 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversial content added by User:Escravoes

Can any administrators take some action on this user. This user is known for his habit who like to put nonsense criticism section on every articles he interested. For example like (which have been reverted) this on Kuala Lumpur, this on Samutprakarn Crocodile Farm, this on Malaysian ringgit, Claude Shannon and this on Lawal Kaita articles. Herman Jaka (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Propose boomerang on the OP at the Kuala Lumpur article: for making offensive edit-summaries, not assuming good faith, lack of civility, etc; but mainly for his tendentious editing, effectively vandalising the article by removing sourced material (on grounds of WP:DONTLIKEIT), then making tiny edits to prevent rollback, and finally for then bringing this spurious report. Those other refs might need a touch of copy-editing, but again, they are all sourced, and in any case constitute a content dispute which is not the purpose of AN/I. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

Support boomerang per fortuna.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} and 142.105.159.60 for your boomerang comments against User:Herman Jaka. As _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} had graciously suggested, I had made some copy-editing to the paragraphs. Thanks again and cheers, Escravoes (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"Rebuttals against Herman Jaka by User:Escravoes - Don't Call The Kettle Black!

User: Herman Jaka, which part of the content that I posted are, in your personal point of view, controversial or (vandalism as you had threatened me here in your "final warning", especially regarding Kuala Lumpur? Note that the points that I did posted were sourced from major websites; CNN, Huffington Post (Canada) and from several Malaysian newspapers, all of which are cited online and provided as inline references. Your accusations are not only baseless, but they are unfounded and reflected POV color on your part, and there were no intent of vandalisms on my part. Escravoes (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, most of the content added by you has no relevance at all as an enyclopedic content. Most of your criticism addition have been reverted not just by me but other users too who see your addition as not neutral at all. I have given example of some your edits that was reverted for the same reason above. You can ask @Chipmunkdavis: on why your content was removed. Herman Jaka (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Again I asked, (as I did with @Chipmunkdavis:) - which part of the content that I posted are , in your opinion, controversial or vandalism, especially regarding Kuala Lumpur? Your accusation of vandalism are unfounded and baseless and reflected your biased POV-pushing. The ranking of the city are well-documented and sourced from CNN, Reuters, Financial Times London, several major national newspapers and is directly relevant to the encylopedic content of the article, which itself listed several similar rankings prior to my edits!Escravoes (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are really so obsessed to insert this kind of spammy city rankings [13]. Why don't you give a try to add those too in popular cities articles such as Portland, London, Jakarta, Manila and see whether you get reverted for the same reason or not. Herman Jaka (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

User: Herman Jaka, it is not that I am "so obsessed to insert this kind of spammy city rankings" , but rather your biased point of views. If time permits, I (and many Wikipedians) would be happy to provide similar highly credible and verifiable rankings in popular cities articles such as Portland, London, Jakarta, Manila, with no fear of being reverted by those with balanced and neutral point of views. Escravoes (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(non user comment) What? Is that you called WP:NPOV by removing a large chunk of history content and replacing it with rankings? Your contribution are clearly disruptive and you could be blocked for that. 128.90.59.154 (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The violation of NPOV of those section headings in the articles is astounding. The material could be discussed and rewritten but I have no idea what you were thinking when you came up with those headings. Blackmane (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's disruptive conduct is preventing content creation on Orgelbüchlein

There are several articles on the organ music of J.S. Bach and G.F. Handel that I have created. I created the articles Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", Clavier-Übung_III, Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Handel organ concertos Op. 7 and Handel organ concertos Op. 4 amongst others. Since 2012 I have intermittently been working on Orgelbüchlein (OB), a collection of 46 chorale preludes for organ by Bach. These are musical compositions based on Lutheran hymns which Bach intended for 4 purposes: church services, a treatise on composition, a religious statement and a pedagogical manual. Thus religion plays a fundamental part in the work; and these compositions are part of the standard church repertoire. There are two standard texts on OB: one by Peter Williams (Cambridge University Press); and one by Russell Stinson (Oxford University Press), with 250 pages between them on OB. The writers are both organists (as am I). I have completed one fifth of the descriptions of the chorale preludes. Each involves musical quotations, a midi file in lilypond giving an audio version of the piece, part of the text of the hymn, North German images to illustrate the liturgical significance of the piece and a musical analysis. It is a rather slow and painstaking process adding new chorale preludes.

Francis Schonken has recently arrived on the scene. He appears to have an intense dislike of the fact that the pieces chart the liturgical year and have liturgical significance. He has been claiming that the article is POV pushing becauase of HEDOESNTLIKEIT. He does not feel he has to make any reference to the two main sources when discussing the article: just his own prejudices. He has attempted to add a small of content by copy-pasting from outdated sources (by Charles Sanford Terry (historian), a bio that I created) and duplicating content already in the article.

At the moment as I am busy adding content in a significant way, he has does everything possible to interrupt that content creation. Each chorale prelude requires preparation and thought. It cannot be rushed. Francis Schonken is aware that I was hospitalised last week as an emergency; and probably is aware that I have not fully recovered. Yet he has decided to create an impossible and toxic editing environment: in that environment he refuses to discuss the sources and simply reiterates his prejudices about religion and makes absurd statements about POV-pushing. The musical iconography in Bach's sacred music is a large part of Bach scholarship, even if Francis Schonken dislikes that. His likes and dislikes should not enter into the picture: the aim of wikipedia is just to summarise the best possible sources, which is what I do.

At the moment, if I take a three or four hour break between editing chorale preludes, he comes back to vandalise the article; while I am in full flow but recuperating. He mostly removes content, including musical quotation. I am busy adding content for the 37 remaining chorale preludes. In the two sources Williams and Stinson, that can mean there are 3 to 5 pages to summarise, often involving extra material from elsewhere. Francis Schonken want to prevent that editing and, so it seems, frighten me away from the article.

He is disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Please could he be topic banned from this article while it is being created?

His unwillingness to discuss sources shows extreme bad faith on his part. It runs completely counter to the way wikipedia articles are written. He has played the same game of harassment on other editors (e.g. Gerda Arendt). As far as I am concerned, if doesn't want to look at the sources or doesn't have access to them, he should not be editing the article and certainly should not be preventing the main person responsible for the article completing its creation. Of course no article is in a finished state, but in this case the basic structure of the article has been clear from the outset. It is similar to the other articles on organ works by Bach and Handel that I have created; although each has its special flavour. Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken has now stated that using the two main sources (Stinson and Williams) to write the article is unacceptable. He says that relying on these as the main sources is POV-pushing. But on the other hand he has not proposed any other comparable sources at all. Indeed the reason is simple: there are none (at least in English). His stance is indefensible: he is rejecting modern musicological scholarship in this topic. There seems to be no rational reason behind his statements. Here are the books that he says are POV-pushing:

• Stinson, Russell (1999), Bach: the Orgelbüchlein, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-386214-2
• Williams, Peter (2003), The Organ Music of J. S. Bach (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 227–316, ISBN 0-521-89115-9

I never expected to be told on wikipedia that books like these are POV-pushing. The academic reviews of the books certainly don't say that. Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In March I did this edit on Clavier-Übung III, i.e. moving a hymn text to the article on the hymn.

Now a few days ago I did a similar edit to Orgelbüchlein, that is: besides moving the hymn text to the related hymn article also replacing one image as explained in the edit summary. All at once this seemed for some reason problematic, thus I explained myself on the talk page of that article.

I tried to reason with Mathsci, to no avail thus far. Example: I pointed this editor to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines explaining that naming other editors in talk page headers is not allowed, after I removed it, Mathsci reverted it back in, added another one with the same problem, and after removal yet again

I understand Mathsci is still under some ArbCom remedy for engaging in battlefield conduct. I've seen plenty of battlefield conduct in their behaviour in these few days. Some of their contentions above are all but a correct assessment of the situation (that is an understatement), so I hope nobody is taking this for true without checking. E.g., re. liturgical year / liturgical significance: I sorted the Church cantata article according to liturgical function recently, I don't think Mathsci is really aware what they accuse me of. Similar: talking about sources: that is what I put first in talk page discussions, so a fantastic accusation, with no base, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe you mischaracterize Mathsci's current sanctions. He has mutual interaction bans with a number of editors, and cannot edit in the "Race and intelligence" subject area. (The exact wording can be found here; search for "Mathsci".) BMK (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci: remedies: "1.1) Mathsci is admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct. —Passed 5 to 3, 01:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)". AFAIK that remedy is still active and it is stated in general, without being limited to the area of conflict of the case. And indeed, again, in a few days I've seen plenty of "battlefield conduct" by Mathsci whom I never met before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Unlike a block, a topic ban, an interaction ban, or a site ban, an admonishment is not an active sanction. He isn't editing "under admonishment by ArbCom", like a Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, he was admonished by ArbCom for his editing up to the time of the closing of the case. You'll note that he was site banned in that decision, and ArbCom just recently unbanned him, and the unban announcement made specific note of the iBans and topic bans that are still in effect, but made no mention of the admonishment, because, again, it's not an active sanction. BMK (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand all that, that's why I used the word "remedy", not "sanction" (which is a qualification you came up with and which is indeed irrelevant to the remedy I referred to). Being admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct should make someone refrain from battlefield conduct immediately after some other remedies (those others of the "sanction" type) were lifted and/or otherwise alleviated or modified (i.e. at a time when the admonishment for engaging in battlefield conduct has not been modified or alleviated or whatever at all). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the question here is who is exhibiting "battlefield conduct". Is it simply Mathsci, or is it both Mathsci and you, or is it just you? Clearly, you believe it's just Mathsci, but you're hardly an unbiased observer. It's for others to determine who is misbehaving (if anyone), not you. BMK (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On the article talk page Francis Schonken just wrote:

Adapted some section header levels above as all of this is still part of the problems first outlined some years ago by Zwart. I'll be placing a NPOV related tag on the article now, linking to this section. The latest drive for unbalance seems to be tilting this article too much towards one or two sources (as if they were the only ones writing on individual chorale preludes in this collection). The NPOV policy and other core content policies demand to let all rpresentative reliable sources speak for themselves, and not filter them through the perspective of one or two of them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In other words using the two major references (there are no others) is POV-pushing and the use of these OUP and CUP books warrants a giant NPOV tag on the article. Good grief. I've rarely seen anything so disruptive. Francis Schonken presumably will now claim that somebody else wrote that, not him. Mathsci (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this situation needs a third-opinion type of resolution. It's basically a content-dispute between two editors who don't see eye-to-eye, and trying to decipher who is causing the log-jam is I think really too long of an endeavor for ANI to figure out. Therefore I would suggest posting an appeal for opinions on the WP:WikiProject Classical Music talk page, or go directly to WP:3O and post a request for a third opinion there. Alternatively, invite another editor(s) in who commonly edits on Bach articles -- say, Gerda Arendt, etc. -- and have them opine. From my own casual observation, I've noticed that Francis Schonken can go both ways in his editing style -- he can indeed sometimes create a toxic and domineering editing environment, or he can edit reasonably and rationally and collaboratively. To the OP I might have suggested that wholesale revision of an article is usually done best and easiest on a user-page draft rather than live, and that taking years to implement one kind of update is not ideal -- it should be done of a piece, so that the article stays coherent. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not really. When I wrote Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, I used the above book of Williams and Stinson's book "The Great Eighteen". For the Handel organ concertos I used the book of Stanley Sadie, etc, etc. Despite the smearing remarks of Francis Schonken, arbcom has praised my articles on baroque music. On the other hand Francis Schonken was warned recently by two administrators about harassing Gerda Arendt, another Bach editor.[14] He's just repeating that behaviour towards another unfortunate victim. He seems to resent my expertise. Mathsci (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2016 (UT

You say "Not really" but you fail to refute a single thing I've said, and are indulging in repetitious self-justification. This is why I think this is a two-editor merry-go-round which needs a third opinion. Please stop arguing your content-dispute case here and take it to the proper venues as I've suggested. ANI is the wrong venue. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Observations of article talk-page behavior: For the heck of it, I just took an objective look at the article talk-page dialogue between the two editors (which has all occurred within the past week), and these edits are particularly egregious: [15], [16], [17], [18]. And they are all by Mathsci, and all from the past 24 hours. Mathsci, if you have been on Wikipedia for 10 years and have made 40,000 edits, and you still don't know how to behave in article talk-page discussions, I'd say you are a large part of, if not the source of, the problem here. Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Mathsci should direct comments towards content and not contributors. It doesn't matter so much at ANI, but this section should be titled "Disruption at Orgelbüchlein" without naming an editor. Before the current excitement, Mathsci had made 492 edits to Orgelbüchlein from May 2010 to June 2013, while Francis Schonken made one edit in February 2015. Francis Schonken should find someone who is actually damaging the encyclopedia before going into attack mode—leave the article alone and return in a month. Then ask for opinions at a wikiproject. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, because they are intended to deal with behavioral issues, section titles on AN and AN/I are exceptions to the proscription against naming names. BMK (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed, but it's not necessary in this case and does not help the situation. My comment was after skimming Talk:Orgelbüchlein and a better statement would have included that after the finger-pointing at that page, it would be better to tone down the drama here (hmmm, that's not right for ANI either!). Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Re: To Johnuniq's points: I think the OP fails utterly in his OP to make his case (not a single WP:DIFF of evidence, and definitely no substantiating of this bit of mind-reading: "Francis Schonken is aware that I was hospitalised last week as an emergency; and probably is aware that I have not fully recovered"). Moreover, Mathsci had not edited the article in three years [Edited to add: likely due to his recently rescinded site ban] before Francis Schonken came by this week and made a large removal: [19]. That said, Francis Schonken should not be removing text from a stable article (having the same material covered in the main article and the fork article is fine and there is no stricture at all against that), or quarreling against established reliable sources, or (what appears to be deliberately) interfering with what is now ongoing work on the article by an expert in the field who has apparently been adding to and organizing it for quite some time now, or making snarky comments on the talk page (Francis started the snark and attacks [20], and Mathsci then responded in kind). I agree with Johnuniq that Francis Schonken should probably leave the article alone, Mathsci should be able to return it to how he had it, and Francis Schonken should work somewhere else on Wikipedia. I don't think he should return to the article in less than two months, if at all, and if so at that point then only under the condition of engaging in formal WP:DR with the other editor. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC); edited 05:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with your summary. I have resumed editing the article after 2 1/2 years away from it. At the top of one of the main sections Orgelbüchlein#Chorale_Preludes_BWV_599–644 is written: The brief descriptions of the chorale preludes are based on the detailed analysis in Williams (2003) and Stinson (1999) with harvtxt links. 9 of the brief descriptions are complete and I have started adding the remaining 37. Those two sources are the main sources in the English language within current Bach scholarship. The act of putting a POV tag on an anodyne and scholarly article was disruptive; equally disruptive was the charge that major sources in current Bach scholarship were being deliberately excluded in favour of biased sources. To restore some balance from the real world, here is Williams' obituary in The Guardian, written by the Bach scholar John Butt; Peter Williams died in April. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• I deem the organisation Mathsci proposes for the article problematic (explained in part here). Instead of engaging in the discussion of that issue, Mathsci tries to govern the article content by {{in use}} templates (i.e. keeping them up between editing sessions), ignoring the topic when discussed (instead adding walls of text in talk pages unrelated to the topic at hand), engaging in inadmissible talk page behavior (see diffs above, repeated by Softlavender), removing tags without addressing the issue at hand, and the like. I'd suggest not to reinforce the editor's self-assigned presumptions w.r.t. to article content, but instead invite them to take part in reasonable discussion of the article structure topic. Mathsci has been there before, compare Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 41#Discussion of Clavier-Übung III at AN/I, and for the Orgelbüchlein: Talk:Orgelbüchlein#Religious POV.

Re. "large removal": nah, moving two stanzas to a hymn article as I did on Orgelbüchlein (see diff above) wasn't a "large removal". I performed similar moves (of more than two stanzas) in March (diff above) and also this one from 2014: [21]. If contesting the edit and there is an ongoing talk page discussion about it then take part in that discussion with reasonable arguments: pasting a {{in use}} template and filling the talk page with off-topic replies (crying woolf about "blanking" and the like) is far from an appropriate response.

That being said, I'm of course glad Mathsci expands the article with analyses and references, but that hardly solves the "excess of vaguely related primary sources" problem: if anything it makes that issue unavoidable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't signify what or how you personally "deem" the current organization of the article -- that is the status quo and has been for years. Your coming in and trying to bully and edit-war your way to change it without consensus or WP:DR is not acceptable, and the current consensus here on this thread is that you need to bow out and stop interfering with the logical progression of the article by the expert in the subject matter who has been steadily adding to and improving it over the years [with an involuntary hiatus] and is following a well-explained plan. At this point both your large and small edits to the article are looking like harassment, especially given your talk-page characterization of them, and it would be to everyone's advantage if you bow out for now, wait a few months as Mathsci has requested (and now two other editors here have as well), and find something else on Wikipedia to do. Your "religious POV" tag on the article is the height of disruptiveness, in my opinion, and indicative of the unrealistic and battleground attitude you are taking. I think it best that you voluntarily leave the article now. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. While being typical behavior for quite a lot of editors, it is farcical that someone might become so indignant about Mathsci's development of the article as to create all the bluster. If Mathsci is adding too much detail, that is hardly a great wiki sin. I mentioned above that Mathsci has commented too much about an editor rather than content, so there is some blame for everyone, including myself who should be working elsewhere. The solution is for Francis Schonken to forget about the article, and to get other opinions after a couple of months rather than taking it upon himself to be the judge and executioner. It's fine to disrupt someone who is adding misleading or poorly sourced material to degrade an article, but that is definitely not the case here. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I suggest you all look at Francis Schonken's behaviour on Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 and his behaviour on Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4, including unacceptably copying to that page editors' comments on other talk pages with their signatures, refactoring them as he saw fit, and failing to provide links to the original context [22]. They are indicative of the kinds of problems Mathsci is facing. Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 is a Featured Article promoted only two months ago. One month after its promotion Francis started making swingeing changes to the content with no prior discussion [23]. This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title [24] and edit-warring [25], [26] to keep it there. The main editor objected to the page move and participated in the post hoc discussion on the talk page but Francis refused to participate any further in that discussion after less than a day and then unilaterally closed it. Instead of initiating a proper requested move discussion with wider participation, he festooned the article with maintenance tags and said he was taking it to FAR with the intent of getting it demoted [27]. The FAR was closed as out of process but he continued his bulldozing. The article is still festooned with tags and virtually all of its previous editors, including its main editor have been driven away. Its talk page is a now an unreadable mess and a place where Francis talks only to himself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I hear you and I trust your analysis. I have put Orgelbüchlein on my watchlist, but I don't know what to do about Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4. Do you have any suggestion(s) or proposal(s)? I've seen this pattern of disruption and bullying with Francis Schonken before. What is your recommendation here? Softlavender (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have been pinged here, a place I try to avoid (otherwise I might have come for the reasons Voceditenore outlined above). I understand Mathsci's point fully. Look just at one diff of many: the fourth (central) stanza of the chorale replaced by a link to the chorale article, leaving the image and text without its base, - no improvement if you ask me, on top of no consistency with the other pieces of the book.

I just returned from vacation where I had another chance to listen to BWV 565. Francis Schonken wrote that article, I respect it and stay away from it. I think if Francis offered the same respect to the articles of others (BWV - now a redirect to one of the longest articles on Wikipedia instead of a brief explanation of how Bach's works are arranged in the catalogue, Church cantata (Bach), see that discussion where I said first that I have no time to deal with it, and I could name more articles), we all had a better time. "Man liveth and endureth but a short time." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thank you for your input. I have to agree from my observations (generally from afar but sometimes in the thick of his disputes with other editors over articles that the other editor[s] have vastly improved and carefully added to) that Francis Schonken's editing behavior is often disruptive, disrespectful, and domineering, and often drives good editors away in favor of his and only his preferred edits. The question is, what to do about this? It seems by all accounts to have occurred across many articles and over a long period of time. At this point we have an editor who, although he has also made some good contributions to Wikipedia, has a history of problematical behavior. Is it time for a broad-scale investigation? Or a topic ban on certain types of articles? A probationary period in which he is barred from this sort of behavior? Or some other solution(s)? Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A temporary ban from articles on the sacred music of J.S. Bach, broadly construed, might be in order. That would not exclude the lengthy article he wrote on the popular organ piece BWV 565, which has no religious connections and is probably not by Bach and not originally for organ. (Unfortunately closer inspection of BWV 565 shows that it is a very poorly written article for a large number of reasons: amongst them poor English with some sentences completely indecipherable; no proper treatment of the fugue, not even a musical quotation of the fugue subject despite 3 large images of the opening of the toccata—all part of a general absence of musical analysis; not using the main modern sources for commentary; quoting out of date sources not generally accepted within modern Bach scholarship; unduly lengthy content on legacy, such as Walt Disney's film "Fantasia"; and a blow-by-blow commentary on the source books in wikipedia's voice. This would not be so serious, except that Francis Schonken seems to think[28] that his article sets the standard for writing articles on Bach compositions.) Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse Softlavender's suggestion to take it to some form of dispute resolution. Mediation, third party etc. Nothing requires administrative action here - standard content dispute between two editors who dont see eye-to-eye. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point, my suggestion at the top of the thread is very outdated. FS has been requested by three separate editors (two of whom are completely uninvolved) to stay off the article for at least a few months. In addition a pattern of problematical behavior on FS's part across many articles and over a long period of time has been noted by at least four editors independently of each other. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Its still a content dispute. And frankly on the talkpage its not FS who is the worst offender in battleground behaviour. Lets not mention comments from the opening complaint here by Mathsci: "Francis Schonken is aware that I was hospitalised last week as an emergency; and probably is aware that I have not fully recovered. Yet he has decided to create an impossible and toxic editing environment" - implying someone is deliberately exploiting another's illness is far beyond AGF. And this is not the first time Mathsci has used his illness as a weapon/sympathy tool in a dispute. Last time he was hospitalised prior to his ban, he made very similar claims (and yet still managed to log on to wikipedia regularly to engage in disputes). Francis is no angel, but ultimately when both parties have little credibility and a history of less than stellar behaviour, favouring one over the other in a content dispute would be silly. Send it to mediation, let them both make their cases. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in prolonging this side discussion, but we (the editors investigating and opining on this thread) have already long since gone over and surpassed all of those observations and reached other conclusions -- starting with Johnuniq's entry into the conversation; if you do Control+F and find his first post here you can see the flow of reasoning. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

By 'long since' you mean 'in the last 48 hours'. Fortunately I do not have to agree with you and am perfectly capable of reading a discussion and forming my own conclusions. So less condescension and suggestion that I have not in fact, done so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This is no content dispute between two editors. It should not be on ANI because it is not one incident. It is being helpless against an editor who produces more than I am able to read, doesn't adhere to WP:BRD and is the only one who ever edit warred with me on my talk page. The naming of Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 could have been short: FS moved - I reverted - Francis should find consensus. No, we have a flood of talk page comments, all about two names with exactly the same meaning. I have no time to deal with that. Btw, I am not the author of that article, Thoughtfortheday wrote much more, the community did, several people supported for FA, - it just doesn't meet Francis's standards. - Correction of mistakes is a different thing, we are always willing to do that if asked reasonably. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, I'm just going to correct one of your statements: ANI is for patterns of problematical behavior; it is not for single incidents. However, if you are implying that the relevant patterns of behavior and the number of articles affected are perhaps too large to be dealt with at ANI, that is possibly something to take into consideration I suppose, if a satisfactory result cannot be achieved here for the problems uncovered. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah Gerda, you may want to use a better example of someone else's bad behaviour than a content dispute over the title of an article where you failed to gain consensus for your position despite forum-shopping it to a number of a venues. You clearly *did* have time to deal with it, since you spent an unusually large amount of time attempting to drum up support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) As Softlavender already pointed out, the disruption has arisen from large scale edits [(mass) tagging and arbitrary blanking] to at least two stable articles. The featured article Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 is one example; Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 625 is another. I also believe Gerda Arendt, one of the major contributors to BWV 4, felt that she was being placed under undue pressure, so much so that she abandoned editing the article. Vociditenore also mentioned Francis Schonken's disruptive pasting of text from other unrelated discussions to force a point (this has happened on both talk pages). A temporary topic ban on Bach's sacred music, widely construed, is a reasonable solution. Mathsci (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And yet, still a content dispute. Gerda's bringing up of Christ lag is a red herring as its clear from the discussion there that Francis had both policy and source-based justifications for his position which Gerda was unable to refute despite extensive forum-shopping. I do not see any difference here. Take it to mediation or stop attempting to have someone removed from the topic because they disagree with you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't bring up the cantata, Voceditenore did. (Repeating: I try to avoid WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Repeating also: I am not a "major contributor" to the article, I am one of many, it was developed over years, which explains a certain unevenness.) The present cantata name contradicts most of the sources for the article, including the most relevant ones (Dürr-Jones, Bach-Digital). I didn't go forum-shopping, I raised a more general question on classical music, and I asked a friend who is an admin and an arb if ignoring the whole thing would be best. I wasn't "unable to refute", but gave up for lack of time, - I returned from vacation only late yesterday. Please note that "no time" doesn't mean that I don't have the time but that I don't want to waste my time. - I don't want to see Francis removed from the topic to which he can contribute with knowledge, but need a way to less friction and less waste of time. For a while we had an approach that Francis wouldn't edit an article but only raise questions on the talk. It worked then, but it's still a problem that Francis can raise questions faster than I am able to deal with them. - Any suggestion welcome. 1RR perhaps? Francis accepting WP:BRD? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Re. Softlavender's "... making snarky comments on the talk page (Francis started the snark and attacks [29], and Mathsci then responded in kind) ..." above: I fail to see any snark in the diff. I can only speak for myself – there at least I am sure: no snark of any kind was intended with that article talk page post. "Mathsci ... responded in kind" is not how I perceived this. I never felt any snarkyness or whatever of that kind, not in any kind, in Mathsci's responses. Matschi defended their edits, I defended mine, each from their perspective, but there was no atmosphere of snarkyness in any of that afaics. No "attacks" either in my talk page responses at Talk:Orgelbüchlein. There, as I explained, and has been linked a few times above, were some disallowed tendentious talk page headers in response, but that has long been settled.

Sorry for being emphatic on that point, while a lot of extrapolation seems to be derived from the wrong basic assumption on the snarkyness. If Mathsci experienced my response snarky they could have said so. I extend that invitation: please tell me what you experienced snarky in my response, if you did so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis, your first point was rather snarky. But that's not the real problem illustrated by that diff. The problem is that you:

a. adamantly refused to accept that the other editor had a point: (my bolding) "blanking parts of the article": I did no such thing. Yes you did. Not once but twice.

b presented your views as fiats instead of the start of a collaborative discussion and then edit-warred to "enforce" them: (my bolding) The entombement image is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove it again and The text of stanzas 1 and 4 of Luther's hymn is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove them again.

These issues are pervasive in your editing and in your behaviour on talk pages, and it isn't restricted to the Bach articles. For example, observe your behaviour in this sequence of conversations: [30] [31], [32] over your edit-warring, aggression, and utter refusal to get the point on, of all things, a college's course page at WikiEd. And that's one of many examples. You have a lot to offer. Your edits are often very valuable and you are clearly dedicated to improving Wikipedia. But you do that at the expense of exhausting and driving off equally valuable editors from articles and making talk page discussions intolerable. Yes, improving the Bach articles is important but so is common courtesy, cooperation, and respect for your colleagues. I know it's not easy to find several editors criticising you in a public forum, but I encourage you to reflect a bit on what we're saying. If you don't, I'm afraid you'll end up here again and again. At the very least you'll squander whatever good will and patience other editors may have had towards you. This will be my last comment here, apart from opposing your topic ban. Voceditenore (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

Per Mathsci's analysis and proposal above [33], [34]: Francis Schonken is topic-banned for six months from Bach's sacred music, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Mathsci and per the problems noted by Voceditenore, Gerda Arendt, and others. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately the disruption has not stopped. On this article talk page (which I have not edited), there is continued edit warring, restoring mass copy-pasting of other editors' comments with time stamps from other talk pages.[35] Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL 25,000-byte talk-page post [36]. Always a sign of a collaborative editor. And yes, restoring it less than 6 hours ago shows the disruption has not stopped [37]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

He was posting the discussions that Gerda started in other locations on the same issue in an attempt to keep the discussion in one venue. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is a link for a reason. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As already explained above, I started two discussion, one on classical music, the relevant project, and one asking an admin if I should ignore it. The other copies are from discussions which I didn't start. Brianboulton asked on my talk page what was going on, I answered. His response was reverted three times, I archived the thread. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (below). The point isn't the length of the post. The point is that Francis re-posted editors' comments from other pages and refactored them to suit his purposes. WP:FORUMSHOPPING does not remotely justify that. Nor does it justify re-posting others' comments that are irrelevant to improving the article. Note that in this particularly egregious example, he selectively edited Brianboulton's and my comments at Gerda's talk page which were highly critical of his behaviour and tone at Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 and its talk page. This is the full and original context. Francis removed our criticism of him and what he left implied that I was primarily criticising Gerda for forum shopping. How on earth is re-posting on Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 my suggested wording for Gerda to use when posting at other forums relevant to improving the article? It was simply a tool to browbeat and discredit another editor. Voceditenore (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I dont think Gerda needed any help discrediting themselves. The article title is unchanged. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you substantiated your witty comment by some reliable source. The article title was changed. The comment hurts me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Blatant attempt to remove dissent as part of a content dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it isn't a 25K post- it's an entire thread of many editors' posts. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A post is a post. And it's 25,000 bytes long. Moreover, it's a violation of several policies, including refactoring and copying others' comments out of context and across pages and without permission (see Voceditenore's report here [diff]). And he nevertheless restored the massive WP:TALK-violating post six hours ago. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Only in death has identified some other issues but they are not actionable. It is not a "content dispute" but disruption by Francis Schonken as explained above, and as reported here (diff). No one is required to comment at ANI, but my inference from FS's absence is that FS sees no reason to engage with others—given the context, that is not acceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tx for pinging. No, your inference is wrong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you be open to formal third party mediation Francis? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Only in death: Mediation requires consent from all parties, so would not happen. Although adding serious content to wikipedia might not be quite your cup of tea (326 content edits, mostly on fantasy worlds, war games, anime and manga), dreaming up methods to prevent others doing so [38][39] is not a substitute. Mathsci (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, where one party in a content dispute refuses to engage in mediation that is telling in itself. It clearly indicates who *is* willing to discuss and who just wants to *win*. Although to lower myself to your level for a moment, if we are going through each other's editing history in order to make off-topic attacks - perhaps you would like to explain why when you came back from your ban one of the first edits you made was to an article that shares the real name of an editor you had significant disputes with in the past? Unlikely coincidence there given the name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't there a participant on wikipediocracy whose pseudonym is taken from the same fantasy series as yours? The wikipediocracy character has made several vicious and unjustified attacks on me, including charges of blatant sockpuppetry. Given your present conduct, you are probably that same person, come here to "sort me out". Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

IMHO this seems to be taking an undesirable WP:ASPERSION route. In an attempt to get back on topic, I just came across User talk:Zwart#August 2012:

• "... Please try not to make your arguments personalized ..." (Mathsci) – seems to be applicable here.
• "... several of Math's [...] articles point to a problem of him adding excessive images and other unnecessary material. There's only like a dozen decent-sized paragraphs of original prose in the Orgelbüchlein article despite it being 90 kilobytes in size and even there the sourcing is not always particularly clear, so I think that article does need a lot of work. He should avoid the temptation to clutter an article with images or lyrics, especially since in the most severe cases it could arguably be a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE ..." (The Devil's Advocate) – above Johnuniq wrote "... adding too much detail [...] is hardly a great wiki sin ...": neither is addressing the excessive images and lyrics situation a great wiki sin. I support Matschi in addressing the original prose situation, which, to me at least, thus far seems to be the best part of all what followed my running in with them.
• "... what was very painful in this exchange was the way I was made to feel unwelcome contributing to the article. Wikipedia should not be about fighting for your turf. I'm backing out of this one until I see signs of things opening up." (Zwart) – in other words Mathsci successfully chased Zwart off the page. I tried to be more resilient in not letting me be chased off the page. I appreciate that the way I went ahead with that was too forceful, that's at least what I understand from the many comments here.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This is typical output from Francis Schonken (FS). It does give, however, a very good illustration of his modus operandi. In 2012 while under construction a drive-by editor (Zvart) blanked all the images in the article, a skeleton at that stage. I restored them, carefully explaining why they were there. When FS appeared at the article 4 years later, he failed to notice the difference between completed and uncompleted sections—those with and without musical analysis. 25% is finished: To do list. Here are an uncompleted group and a completed group. Other sections, e.g. Reception, are unwritten. As an article in progress, FS's "statistics" are meaningless and misleading. He has also indiscriminately reproduced other people's comments out of context to make his point. That is also what Voceditenore et al have objected to. Was there a particular reason FS chose a site banned user? Mathsci (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Tx for coming back on topic.

Re. "... drive-by editor ..." – you drove them off the article in two days time, sounds inopportune to characterize the other party as drive-by under these circumstances. Zwart's 2012 statement quoted and linked to above makes clear they had contributed more if you hadn't driven them away from the article.

Re. "... carefully explaining why [the images] were there ..." – I take you are (mainly?) referring to this 2012 exchange on the talk page. Afaics Zwart carefully rejected your rationale for the images, after which you didn't return to that topic, but simply drove Zwart of the article.

Re. " ... [FS] failed to notice ..." – I didn't fail to notice that difference. Please stop assuming.

Re. "... FS's "statistics" ..." – These statistics aren't mine, they are someone else's assessment four years ago, as I clearly indicated. So much for giving more context than needed: the main point for giving that quote was indicating that the problems regarding Mathsci's tendency to "clutter an article with images or lyrics" had been signalled since 2012, and specifically for the Orgelbüchlein article. AFAICS that issue still isn't sorted and Mathschi was to a large extent instrumental in it not getting sorted. Then this week I haphazardly stroll into that minefield of unresolved issues. The issue is also independent of who was banned when. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware FS has very little experience editing articles on Bach's major sacred works for organ: I have written almost all of that content. (4 major articles, the last still in process; I haven't touched the Schübler Chorales, just a stub.) The initial process of creating an article as complex as this is usually performed by one person, which happened to be me. The article is changing rapidly at present. FS seems to be in complete denial of that. Instead he is still trying to force a set of distorted conclusions on others by repetitive heckling, hurling outdated and already answered comments from 2012 at me as if they were biblical curses or plagues. Statistics from 2012 do not apply now. Roughly 20,000 bytes have been added since summer 2012, mainly in 2013 and 2016. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. "The article is changing rapidly at present. FS seems to be in complete denial of that." – on the contrary, and I said so multiple times, even complimented you on your work, as you can see above. Please take the compliment and stop assuming.

Re. "... an article as complex as this ..." – I don't think the article is particularily complex in structure or content. It covers a lot of ground, that is however not the same as complex.

Re. "The initial process of creating an article [whether complex or not] is usually performed by one person" – I think you mis the point of the Wikipedia process of creation: whether other editors arrive early or later you can't chase them away but have to interact with them in a reasonable manner.

The basic problems I experienced with Orgelbüchlein, Clavier-Übung III and Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" are still the same, and have been signalled multiple times over a long period by multiple editors. You refuse to interact to settle the issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I am the only wikipedian to have written detailed articles on the chorale preludes. I play almost all of them: that background knowledge is helpful. The process of creating articles on chorale preludes is complex, even if they are just summaries of what the main sources say: they are also multimedia articles. FS informs us that the process is not complex; but he has never tackled anything remotely like them. BWV 565, which he helped write, cannot be compared to BWV 552, the most elaborate organ prelude and fugue of Bach. His sweeping statements are not useful, and almost always negative; none of them are backed by any expertise. (He made no comments on Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes. I know that Canonic Variations has been translated word-by-word into French; and there hasn't been a constant stream of complaints about the articles I've created.) On the other hand I've actually been writing this type of content for some time now; and here I've simply been describing what's involved. But each time I've done so, up pops FS like a jack-in-a-box, to contradict everything I write. His behaviour is not special to me: he does it to all Bach editors, hence the proposed editing restrictions. cqfd Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The problems with Orgelbüchlein, Clavier-Übung III and Canonic Variations I was referring to are: "[Matschi] should avoid the temptation to clutter an article with images or lyrics, especially since in the most severe cases it could arguably be a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE" (quoted from above), i.e.:

1. excessive images
2. excessive lyrics

Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes does not have that problem.

Please defer from wordgames: I didn't say anything about the creation of those articles being complex or not, you mentioned "... an article as complex as this ..." – so I spoke about the complexity of the article, not of the complexity of the creation process.

And my basic analysis stands: instead of addressing the excessive images/lyrics issue, an issue raised by others, you create diversions. This is not about competency in organ-playing or whatever. This is not about the score examples. Even per omnes versus chorale cantatas don't have the lyrics in their articles. I really ask myself what the organ of the Catholic Hofkirche is doing in the Canonic Variations article. So either we can discuss the excess lyrics/images issue, or you continue to avoid discussing it. I tried. There is one other issue: I don't object to Williams and Stinson as main sources for such articles (never did). But still, they are not the only ones. For the rest I see no problems and excellent work.

Re. "sweeping statements" – here is one: restoring content removed without proper explanation – accusing a bot of not giving a proper edit summary and whatnot (the IMSLP link didn't work any more after your revert, and still doesn't). I've been much more careful in my statements than that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis, Mathsci was not referring to the bot with that edit, and you know it. He was restoring the material you had removed with no explanation as to why [40]. The endless bickering here between the two of you is distracting and counterproductive. Neither of you are doing yourselves any favours. I suggest you both cut it out. Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

With that edit Mathsci reverted the bot edit, which caused the IMSLP link not to work properly any more (it goes to a non-existing category page at the IMSLP website currently). So yes, his edit summary was meant to also cover that inopportune part of the revert. Re. favours: what people want to see (I suppose) is me and Mathsci getting along in communicating about our differences. If that is a process that takes some time, so be it. I'm prepared to go a long way in talk page communication. I already started a Talk page discussion here, so that the Canonic Variations-related issues no longer need to be discussed at ANI (which is not suited for such issues I suppose). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis, it is laudable that you have opened a discussion there—something you should have done in the first place. However, this ANI discussion is not simply about you and one particular editor "getting along". It is about your discourteous and at times intolerable behaviour towards multiple editors in multiple Wikipedia spaces. Until you start reflecting on that wider issue, nothing is going to change. Voceditenore (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, but not because it's a "blatant attempt to remove dissent as part of a content dispute" (as alleged above). The problems go well beyond Mathscii's original complaint. I oppose it because it's too broad, and too long. He's been a valuable editor in many of these articles, although not a valuable colleague. I suggest we give Francis some time to reflect on what's been said here, especially, my last comment [41]. At most a 1RR restriction on the Bach articles could be imposed, but in my view, it should apply to him everywhere, and ideally Francis should impose it on himself. Voceditenore (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, something like that seems reasonable. I've only seen a little of this. Mathsci (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Francis has a longstanding pattern of disrupting articles and doing exactly what he has done here. He baits other editors, twists people's words, and generally engages in some very serious incivility and personal attacks. He also edits against consensus, consistently inferring that anyone's view other than his is wrong. Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose No comment on the appropriateness of some form of restriction, but because "Bach's sacred music, broadly construed" is such an awkward parameter (it's difficult to "broadly construe" such a narrow, specialized topic) this TBAN should not be logged as currently worded. It should either be "Bach's music, broadly construed", "sacred music, broadly construed" or "Bach's sacred music" (no "broadly construed"). I would be happy to withdraw this !vote if the wording is fixed appropriately or the current proposed wording can (somehow) be defended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps a temporary ban could help the editor try to contribute to other articles and get their procedures straight, their behavior has been rather brash from what I've seen and they should take some time off Anipad68 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Strict BRD

Francis Schonken simply adheres to strict WP:BRD, for edits and page moves. If an edit is reverted, he has to find consensus on the article talk page. If his version is good it will find acceptance easily. - I just explained the idea to a new user yesterday. - I try to follow that concept, that's why I reverted only the first of his page moves, not the second and the third.

• Support as proposer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Gerda, I would support something like this, but I suggest you make some changes to your proposal to make it less vague. First, re-title it Restricted to 1RR. While WP:BRD, is a widely accepted norm, it's an essay and too open to interpretation and gaming in this case. Francis has consistently shown that he equates his pronouncements on talk pages as automatically correct, considers making these pronouncements a sufficient "discussion", and heads off to revert again. Second, make it clear in the actual proposal that he must not perform more than one revert on a single page, except his user pages, in any month. His troublesome edit-warring extends far beyond article space and in my view, anything less than a month is insufficient. Third, you should specify how long the restriction should last. I'd suggest 6 months. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Voceditenore proposal: much tighter, less wriggle-room, more likely to work. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My ANI experience - thank goodness - is limited, and I want to keep it that way. - How about you making a proposal, and rename mine suggestion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

OK Gerda, I've changed your "Proposal" to "Suggestion". Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, if you do want to support the tightened version, it would be best to !vote again below to avoid confusion. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Restricted to 1RR

Francis Schonken is restricted to one revert per page in any calendar month. The restriction is to last 6 months and applies to all pages except his own user and user talk pages.

Per my comment immediately above, the problematic edit-warring and bulldozing tactics extend beyond article space, and well beyond Bach's sacred music, and in my view anything less than six months is insufficient. Hopefully, his "my way or the highway" approach will improve with being forced either to make his case via a collaborative discussion or walking away from the page for at least a month. The choice will be his. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that while 1RR is usually within a 24 hour period, there appears to be no restriction on the WP:1RR page on making it longer than 24 hours. In this case, I feel a month is more appropriate to avoid "slow" edit-warring and encourage genuine discussion on the talk page. If Francis's edit gains consensus, then it can be implemented by another party to the discussion as soon as consensus is reached. There is also the alternative of 0RR restriction, i.e. Francis can make no reverts at all for a six month period. I'll leave that to someone else if they want to propose it, but that precludes him even removing good faith silliness like "Many people think this fugue is boring." Voceditenore (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer) Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Creates a clear blue line for all editors; one that should be easy to not cross, but, one which it is easy to see when it has been. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a reasonable rescue package. Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is a smart proposal, better than those above. It needs to be made quite clear to Francis Schonken that neither his high-handed and uncollaborative approach to editing nor his combative attitude to other editors is acceptable here, and this seems a fair way of achieving that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support what I recommended above, thank you, Voceditenore! - Francis, just today I remember that I had disagreements with Nikkimaria in the past (example: Peter Planyavsky) but now we write articles together, I had disagreements with Smerus but now we write articles together: I hope for the same with you, some day, then unrestricted. It would be another most welcome feast of joy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tx, same for me, and convinced it will work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have an article in mind for soon, 16th Sunday after Trinity, so about 4 months to get to GA and DYK for Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben? BWV 8. Go ahead if you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support This proposal seems the one most likely to produce a reasonable outcome. Something is needed given that several good editors are having difficulty working with FS. Further, FS appears to endorse this proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops, no, sorry, should have been clearer. I only replied to the last thing she said. The person who should have known me better by now chose not to. I decided to concentrate on the silver lining. And off go people jumping to wrong conclusions again. Please once and for all spare me of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: In my view, harsher treatment would have been fully justified, but perhaps this moderate approach will prove effective. The edit immediately above does not give me great confidence that it will. Gerda's generosity in the circumstances is amazing. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Long overdue. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I was combing some of the case files to see what was ready to close, and after reading this one, I was inspired to comment. Wouldn't it be a welcome improvement to the entire DR process if more editors would conduct themselves the way Gerda Arendt and Francis Schonken did in this section despite their opposing views? Kudos. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well yeah; although it took one of the parties an ANI report and a near-site ban for it to happen! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 06:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it took the other party learning by AE, learning that it's not the way forward I mean, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubious edits of Jürgen Klinsmann1990

Please see User talk:Jürgen Klinsmann1990. Relatively new user instead of addressing the warnings started revert wars. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• )))--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

In particular the user keeps restoring false references, which do not support the footnoted statements of the article. Some examples :

• Alexander Babakov: Babakov holds a PhD (1988) in Economics from Moscow State University.
• [42]

It appears the user does not understand how the references are supposed to work. Pleas someone talk to this guy. As I see, this user translates chunks of text from Russian wikipedia, which has a rather lax habit in terms of proper referencing. Someone has to explain to this user that English wikipedia has much stricter traditions about verifiability of information. Obviously he will not listen to me.- üser:Altenmann >t 04:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

• And why did You decide that these sources are not worthy? You know Russian language? In my opinion, You are mistaken. Previously I had no such problems, I'm not the first day in Wikipedia.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • These sources are worthy but thy do not say what wikipedia article says. You had no problems because nobody looked in detail. My Russian no problem, but your reading comprehension and refusal to admit mistakes are problems. If nobody here gives a fuck about you behavior, I am abandoning the issue. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, all the rest of the idiots, of course.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

      I confirm that the above citation does not contain the statement it was inserted to reference.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just a thought... Seems like there might be a language barrier problem has someone tried to ping a user that knows Russian and English to maybe explain the issue? --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 22:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Please explain what is unclear to you. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• On an unrelated note, is the username Jürgen Klinsmann1990 compliant with WP:IMPERSONATE? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The user continues his disregard of our rules, as other notice as well. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Dropping a ping @Ymblanter: who speaks Russian and English fluently. Ymblanter, perhaps you may be able to assist? Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I can talk to them, however it looks like they do speak English but are not interested to comply with our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I was wrong, they are using Google Translate for most of the text they add to the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin User:JzG refusing to comply with WP:NFCC#9

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

---

Admin JzG (talk · contribs) keeps restoring the page User talk:JzG to policy-violating status despite being warned not to do so, see Special:Diff/721213078 and Special:Diff/721039098. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A pic of himself, on his bike. Pedantic much? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 says that no non-free images may be used in the user talk namespace. This includes non-free images of the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the issue with the first one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The first diff was to show he was warned. BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Templating a long-standing user as if he were a newbie is not the wisest approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

JzG is unambiguously in the wrong and the image should be removed from his user talk page. BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And the OP is unambiguously in the wrong for violating Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. If you treat an established editor like a jerk, you can expect to be treated the same way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

DTTR is an essay, not a policy with legal considerations. I'm not contesting that Stefan handles these matters in the most delicate way and I have criticised him for his methods in the past. But JzG is still wrong. BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. You're talking here about "legal considerations", and below you're saying it's not about legalities. Also, the OP was screwing around with the subject's talk page, which is likewise not collegial behavior. Maybe the OP should be put on ice for a while to think about things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:USER#Non-free images: Non-free images found on [...] user talk pages) will be removed [...] without warning. Unfortunately, I seem to be more or less the only one fixing WP:NFCC#9 violations, and it would need more users in the area if we also want warnings to users. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to do this work. If you don't like the work (which your attitude suggests), maybe you could switch your focus to something else that needs work. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried. Meh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Seems overly pedantic since the photo is in use at Velo Vision. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, the OP here tagged an 11-year-old picture File:Triplet-empty.jpg which the subject of the complaint says he took himself. Is OP's hassling of JzG a recent phenomenon, or do they have some history? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Naa Stefan does lots of work enforcing NFCC regs (sometimes I think the only person). The first picture (just the bike) *was* marked incorrectly so I suspect it flagged up. That has now been fixed. The second picture technically violates NFCC 9, but given its in use as NF pic on an article, it seems unlikely any attempt to take legal action over its use (the primary reason for the NFCC regs) at JzG's talkpage would get anywhere, and overly strict enforcement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not about whether we would get sued. It's about principles: we are a free encyclopaedia. We only use non-free content for limited uses when it has in particular an important educational purpose. Talk page chat is not that. BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
        • What the OP needed to do, instead of being a jerk, is to ask the admin to put a colon after the two left square brackets. Templating an admin over a 10 year old magazine cover, and having ignored your advice in the past, suggests the OP ought to find something else to do. Such as reading about what happened to Betacommand, who behaved in a similar way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't Betacommand. The OP has had a registered account since 2006. --Jayron32 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't rule out it being a sleeper account. No way to test for it technically, so behavior is all we have to go on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. You would more likely be a sleeper account for me. I could explain how patently ridiculous it is that one could think this was Betacommand based on the edit history (not taking into account the behavior, which has a similar intersection of abuse and image copyright compulsion). But no, there's simply no way. Betacommand, for all his foibles, never planned to be banned, and didn't create clean sleeper accounts he kept using continuously for six years in parallel to his main account on the off chance someone would eventually ban him. Just no. --Jayron32 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, fine. Then what is it about that (voluntary) job that seems to bring out the worst in those doing that work? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If he's actually in the thing, wouldn't that be grounds for free use? Just out of curiosity. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, subjects of photographs almost never have any copyright or usage rights. (To do that they usually have to have some sort of contract with the photographer) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There was me looking for an excuse to bin the wedding photos! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Check your wedding photo contract. Wedding photos are one of the exceptions as they are generally work-for-hire. The current standard is for the photographer to retain copyright for a set period of time at which point it either reverts to the subject or they (subject) gain unlimited usage/repro rights. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The image shouldn't be on the talkpage, but Stefan2 do you see how you created/escalated the situation you're complaining about? Let's see:

1. Looking at File:Triplet-empty.jpg, you must have realized that: (i) JzG had probably uploaded his own photo; and (ii) that it was uploaded more than 10 years ago, when the requirements about image info were less strict.
2. You could just have dropped a friendly note at JzG's talkpage asking him if it was his own photo and offering to update the information for him if so.
3. Can you see why the use of the template probably rubbed him up the wrong way? I appreciate the work you do with images, but a lot of users cite this sort of thing as one of the reasons they find Wikipedia an unfriendly/uncollegial place these days.
4. Then, when the unfree cover photo was used, your response was this. Again, can you see why that got a negative response compared to leaving a polite notice flagging up the issue?
5. You then edit warred, left a templated warning and promptly started this threat within a 16 minute period.

Now, I'm not saying JzG is right and I don't countenance separate rules for long-standing users and/or admins (NFCC applies to everyone). This a storm in a teacup, but it's one that you started and one you should have de-escalated. Sometimes a softer more measured approach gets better results. WJBscribe (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a picture of me, riding my bike, a bikethat people commented on on my talk page, with my son on the rear seat, taken by Peter Eland, then-editor of Velo Vision at a meet at Salt Aire, and supplied to me by Peter at my request. I put it on my talk page as part of the ephemeral discussion about the image. Frankly, I found Stefan's actions here to be little short of trolling. This is indeed a perfect example of the way Wikipedia policies can be actively hostile even to people who have been here a long time. And we keep changing the rules and demanding new shrubberies. File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg was released to me entirely properly, ten years later I am told I must now submit the email to OTRS, but I no longer have the email because I don't keep absolutely every email I ever received, so it's deleted. No wonder people leave. Commons is worse. Somebody tried to nuke commons:File:Gallery 15233 2536 180213.jpg because they didn't spot that my name (which I state openly) matches the name of the uploader on another site where I also shared it. Yes, I know the copyright rules are there for a reason, but FFS we really do go out of our way to make it as difficult as possible to keep anything uploaded, however unambiguous the permissions might be. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you might mean Saltaire in West Yorkshire? My stomping ground as a teenager.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If you delete your evidence that you have permission, then your ability to use the image depends entirely on the copyright holder as courts tend to rule in favour of the copyright holder if the licensee can't prove that he has permission to use the image. In the case of File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg, also see c:COM:GOF - this was uploaded before 8 January 2006 according to the logs. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Excessively legalistic interpretation of the rules based on a hypothetical challenge that will not happen because the release was provided. Ditto with the bike: just because you don't know the identity of the rights owner doesn't mean that I don't, as the uploader. Excessively legalistic interpretation of rules that constantly ratchet towards an achievable asymptote comes across as arbitrary demands for shrubberies. And your response here indicates that either you don't care or (worse) it's deliberate. I am done with you. I never want to interact with you again, ever. That puts you on a list of about three people in my entire ten year history on Wikipedia. Think about that for a moment. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Guy: Do you think Peter Eland would agree to freely license the picture? Since he took the photo, I am assuming he is the original copyright holder. If he agreed to do that, then it would not be subject to the NFCC. Otherwise, I do not see any way to write a valid non-free use rationale for the usage on your talk page which is something required by WP:NFCC#10c. As pointed out the file is currently being used in the Velo Vision article, and it does have a rationale for that particular usage. That stub, however, has been tagged with ref improve since 2009. If by chance it is someday deleted, the justification for the non-free usage of the file will be gone, which means it will probably be deleted per WP:F5. As a freely licensed file, on the other hand, it could stay on your user talk page for as long as you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admins are expected to follow policy, in particular when the specific policy is mentioned in the edit summary, but I guess it could have been handled in a better way... --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Stefan2 in the real world, you pick your battles. Dealing with other editors in Wikipedia is the real world. Do you understand that doing stuff like this squanders your credibility in the community? Are you hearing what people are saying to you in this thread? Those are real questions... please do answer. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fwiw Guy seems to know the person who runs the magazine. His edit note here when he removed the first warning that Stefan placed says: "My talk page, my bike, me riding it. Ask Peter Eland if you want evidence of permission for this". (see Velo Vision for who Peter Eland is.) The legal risks to WP are nothing here. This is drama that wastes everyone's time and accomplishes precisely nothing. A little IAR in this particular situation would have been the clueful thing to do. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it possible that the OP is a long-standing sleeper account of Betacommand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Files with {{non-free with permission}} may not be used on user pagesas they are non-free. --Stefan2 (talk)
    • What part of that rule permits you to treat the user like a jerk? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Just my two cents, but the policy seems pretty straightforward. Maybe it should be changed, and that's a fine discussion to have, but as it stands, it seems like a pretty clear violation. Stephan could probably use a little more tact, which is also a fine discussion to have, but is a bit of a separate issue. Overall, it seems like the "they're an admin" or "I know the guy" arguments as defenses are pretty wobbly precedents to set. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It's hard to believe that of all the brazillions of images in Wikipedia, that this ten year old magazine cover is the worst offender. The OP here needs to stop behaving like Betacommand, or he's liable to be likewise banished from Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure whether or not it is the worst offender is particularly relevant. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
            • So, is it a personal vendetta? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
              • No idea. But I do think a boomerang and whether the image should be on a talk page are separate issues. And on that note, I'm going to try to do something productive. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
                • The question is, is the image free to use. Simple as that. The answer is no, it's not so it should not be on the page, regardless if the user knows the person or is an admin. If the user knows the person, then get a waiver or something. But whether we agree with it or not, we, and admins especially, need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Actually, Bugs, when I used to do NFCC#9 cleanup many moons ago (and it is indeed a thankless task, and errors are certainly not limited to newbie editors either), I had a script which produced a report of all the non-free images outside articlespace. I presume Stefan is using the same sort of thing, so it is unlikely to be a personal vendetta. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

                Would you have treated the editor the way the OP has done? I rather doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

                • Correct. I use quarry:query/1203 to find these files, and this magazine cover showed up in that list. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes, Stefan you are technically correct.
2. No, Stefan the way you went about dealing with this is not acceptable. A comment out, then a template to a 10 year veteran, then straight to AN/I is not the way to deal with things.
3. Yes Stefan no non-free images should be used on talk pages.
4. No Stefan, there is no conceivable real-world implication of this picture appearing there, so AN/I really isn't the place for this.
5. Yes Stefan it would be nicer to see more people involved in dealing with fair-use on WP
6. No Stefan, people are not going to be attracted to this thankless task when they see how bureaucratic other editors can be about these things.

Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Stefan's extremism about images has been a problem for a long time. A low point was his nomination of File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg for deletion the day after I uploaded it to Commons. [43] He argued that Category:Auschwitz Album (see Auschwitz Album), of which this image is part, ought to be deleted because: "the United States copyright holder is the SS employee who took the image, or, should the employee be dead, the heirs of this SS employee." See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg. This is exactly how Betacommand behaved. It wastes a lot of volunteer time. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Betacommand often acted like a jerk, but the thing about him that really used to annoy the people that he came into conflict with was that, 95% of the time, he was right and they were wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Black Kite, "right" according only to the most extreme interpretation of the non-free policy. It wastes a lot of time and he does seem to hound people. Whether it really is targeted hounding, or whether he's doing the same to lots of people, I can't tell, but it's depressing to have to spend time addressing positions that lack all common sense. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• In Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg, the error was that the uploader hadn't provided evidence that the copyright had expired in both the United States and a source country. Necessary (but not in themselves sufficient) conditions for this are that a) the photo has been published somewhere with consent from the photographer (as there is no situation under c:COM:HIRTLE where an unpublished German work from the 1940s can be in the public domain in the United States), and b) the photo hasn't bee published with consent from the photographer (as the photograph otherwise would hit the 70 years from publication rule in {{Anonymous-EU}} instead of the 70 years from creation rule, and the photo remained unknown to the public for several years). Since the uploader hadn't proven that a) and b) both were true, the file was nominated for deletion. But I'm not sure why you are bringing this up here. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of shooting the messenger going on here and it's a bit disturbing. Who's going to want to be a messenger if they get shot like this? Everyone seems to agree that the OP is correct with policy. If you're mad at the policy, do something about the policy, right? But don't shoot the person enforcing the policy..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem that a lot of editors forget is that NFC is as critical to maintain as BLP, in the eyes of the WMF; it, BLP, and copyvios are the only content policies that have WMF mandates. There are lots of grey areas of where NFC can be used, yes, but there are also a lot of bright lines that must be met as well, and we're supposed to deal with NFC that fall over those bright lines rigorously per the WMF. We need to be 100% sure on copyright ownership before declaring what might be a non-free image as uncopyrightable or PD, and so in a situation like the above, Stefan has every right to question the nature of the copyright chain of custody. They might be wrong, sure, and appear to have been wrong in this case, but as long as they drop the stick w.r.t. that set of images, that's how we should be treating such material. This is not how BetaCommand acted, so the implications that Stefan is BetaCommand are completely unfounded. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Masem, these extremist positions about NFC are very damaging – to the policy and to the community. But I note that the extremism doesn't extend to preventing the objectification of women. You recently supported a featured-article candidate that contained a non-free image of a naked woman, one that I would say clearly violates the non-free content policy. But the Auschwitz Album must go, and an old image of a bike on a user page is an outrage. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Except as long as a credible enough reason is provided, non-free images can be used in articles. The Auschwitz album and the bike image are, as policy is written, not valid uses. The US is clear on how it applies copyright. I disagree with Stefan's *enforcement* of the policy in this (and I would have in the Auschwitz case too) but as per the written policy they are invalid. IAR can be waved for Auschwitz as the collection of photos clearly enhances the project and no one is *ever* going to raise a copyright claim on behalf of an unnamed SS concentration camp guard. Likewise JzG's close acquaintance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is unambiguously clear from policy that files need a source. Special:PermanentLink/24983809 reveals that the copyright holder releases the file to the public domain, but it doesn't say who the copyright holder is, so there is no way to verify this claim. Such files need to be discovered as soon as possible: if you wait a few years, then the uploader may have left the project, and then it is no longer possible to ask the uploader for clarification. It's a bit unfortunate that it took ten and a half year to spot this, but luckily the uploader was still around, so he was able to clarify this. If the file had been around for another ten years without being fixed, then there's a risk that the file might never have been fixable, if the uploader no longer is around at that time. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, what? I never commented anything about the nature of the image (or the article itself) outside of whether the image met NFCC or not, so to claim that my view doesn't extend to "preventing the objectification of women" is a personnel attack and absolutely unwarranted. NFC is NFC, there are a number of bright lines that have to be met to use such images, and assuring that an image that might be non-free is not presented as free is very much one of those bright lines. Yes, ultimately it was shown that the Auschwitz images are claimed by other authorities to be in the PD, so that matter is settled, but at the time Stefan nominated them, there was a fair question as to their nature. What Stefan did is what anyone should be expected to do if they see a free image that might actually be non-free. (At commons, the only way is via deletion; here en.wiki, we now use FFD to review such images). --MASEM (t) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

TIL nudity is sexist. TimothyJosephWood 15:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Masem & User:Slimvirgin, which article and image are you talking about? I normally do not follow discussions about featured articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5 though details on this are otherwise way off track for this matter. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• God damn it, this was not an ANI matter. If JzG was indeed intransigent on this cosmically minor matter, Stefan should have just taken it up quietly with some admin. What an incredible waste of time this has been -- time which could have been spent productively.

Stefan's officious attitude is indeed offensive and a problem. In my one interaction with him I was driven almost mad by the templating, answers-which-didn't-answer-the-question, and refusal to engage what I was saying WP:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_4#File:WugTest_NowThereIsAnotherOne_FairUseOnly.jpg. Finally someone else came along and resolved the problem in an instant by pointing to the right policy, and answering the question asked. EEng 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:EEng, sorry if I didn't properly explain what the guidelines say at that time. When I get mad at something, I guess I sometimes escalate things a bit too much and don't think of what the best solution would be. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Stefan demonstrating poor judgement in resolving issues and templating can be seen in these three posts to me. Each is about an orphaned non-free image. Each file names the academic journal to which it relates (as an image of the cover). Each had a proper non-free rationale. In each case, all that was needed was reversion of explained removal of the image, which should have been obvious. Instead of fixing the problem, Stefan simply dumps a template on my page for me to fix the problem. The value of an editor doing such work rather than a bot is that an editor has a brain and can exercise judgement. Sadly, whenever I see Stefan, I think of cases where information is clearly available but in the wrong form or simple problems which could have been quickly solved. Stefan, JzG is not following policy, but that doesn't put you in the right here. EdChem (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A serious issue is attitude, which unfortunately is still something of fallout from BetaCommand from ~2009. There are presently over 0.5 million non-free images on en.wiki. There are about a dozen editors that actively maintain NFC, in light of the fact that after the falling out of the BetaCommand case, editors tend to give little fair treatment of those actually enforcing NFC. It's a vastly unappreciated job but one critical to the en.wiki and WMF mission, and the taint of the fallout of the BetaCommand situation has caused many editors to avoid admining that area to avoid getting being treated as if they were BetaCommand. As such, most of these admins in NFC do run their adminstration mechanically, using templates messages and the like, because that seems to be the only way to get through to most other users, while of course templating circularly leads to the resentment towards NFC and admins that handle that. While I do strongly agree that if all that is wrong with an image is a simple typo fix that is easily determined simply by looking at rationale that the admin should fix it instead of templating, many of the more common mistakes require understanding what the uploader or image user was thinking of when they added the non-free, and that's something that while an admin might guess at, it might be a wrong guess, and it is up to the uploader or reuser to make sure it is correct. (That is one thing that fell out from the Betacommand mess, that the onus on proper rationales, etc. is on the uploader, though admins should use common sense to fix the obvious typos).
  • We do need every editor on both sides, the NFC admin and those using NFC, to come back towards a more personable way to handle NFC, but with the understanding that it is a severely under-admined area that might have to resort to simple shortcuts (templates) to process the situation effectively. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • User:EdChem, if a file has been removed from an article, then it is typically a lot easier for the uploader to tell if it is correct that the article is unused or if it should be restored to the article. Also, the sooner the uploader becomes aware that a file incorrectly has been removed from an article, the faster the uploader can restore it to the article, so to reduce the time during which the image is missing from the article, the file should in my opinion be tagged as soon as possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hatting: Either inappropriate sockpuppetry or block evasion (don't know which, but doesn't matter). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If JzG was in Stefan's shoes, he'd have banned the interloper "long-since", citing 3RR. "I'm just saying", that JzG knows who runs Wikipedia. *He* does, and if he wants to violate a rule, he *can*, he *does*, he doesn't care, and 40 people will line up and defend him, ignoring his hypocrisy and pathologizing the innocent fool (with due respect to Stefan) who had the unmitigated audacity to expect equal treatment. Ditto for when he bans someone-else, but in the other-direction. JzG is violating the 3RR, but 'he is who he is' and he gets to do what he wants. That's how Wikipedia operates and that's why Wikipedia is at-risk of delegitimatizing itself. Stefan had every right to complain, and handling with JzG with kid-gloves is not required. He doesn't own any himself, btw. Back on-point: If JzG knows the photo-owner, great, send him an email, get permission to release copyright, and no problem. There's no special "I know a guy" rule, as in "I know a guy, and he gave me X and he's probably give me copyright over X, since I'm part of X". You either have CR or you don't. That's JzG's logic, and he'd be here ranting if any other uses was behaving as he does. ChickenBoneInMyPonyTail (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Comment And you created an account ten minutes ago just to tell us that? Thanks. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I smell feet. Did someone take their socks off? TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Dude, if you criticize JzG, it's like having the whole cast of the Walking Dead after you. And I have a survival instinct. ChickenBoneInMyPonyTail (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have updated the article Velo Vision by adding refs, and in doing so discovered that Peter Eland (who apparently took this picture, according to Guy) has retired from publishing the magazine and sold it to a former reader, Howard Yeomans. The fair use image data for the magazine cover being used in the article says that it is Intellectual property owned by Velo Vision Ltd. So isn't Yeomans now the owner of the intellectual property (the magazine cover) in question here?
  • Generally, yes, the sale of a property and all its old content transfer the copyright to the new buyer as well, but its possible there's different terms that allowed Eland to retain copyright, so there's no immediate way to tell without asking. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it not possible for this discussion to take place at the file's talk page (where efforts to resolve such matters are perhaps best placed)? The filing party acknowledges he didn't handle this very well, and if no actual sanction is going to result, must the discussion here be kept open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If by "acknowledging" you mean this dif please look at the three remarks made all at once there. I see "I'm sticking to my guns here" not a frank acknowledgement by Stefan of all the feedback they have been given here. I think this is pretty ripe for a boomerang by now, exactly because there is no sign they have heard what almost every commenter here has said. I was hoping to see them write something like "OK I get it. I withdraw this and will take the criticism I've gotten here on board." Stefan hearing what has been said here, is the one useful thing that could come out of what has otherwise been a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

More out of control legalism from Stefan2

• JzG can look after himself. However what happens when Stefan2 tries the same sort of tricks on a new editor?

These:

• WP:Files for discussion/2016 May 19#File:Oscar Building at Delaware State University - Rear.jpg
• User talk:Oscar6522
• User:Oscar6522/sandbox Optical Science Center for Applied Research at Delaware State University
• Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOscar6522 (indef block)

With aid from RHaworth, this represents one of the worst bits of WP:BITE I've seen. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Really, this amounts to WP:BULLYING by him. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess you didn't see the comment further down, where copyright holder's information is in the metadata. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• May I motion to close the topic? This is just getting kind of pathetic now. HalfShadow 19:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

I feel this was closed prematurely, but whatever. Eight years ago, at WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Role_of_editors_who_specialize_in_image_review, Arbcom stated

8) Editors who review images uploaded to Wikipedia and identify those that fail to satisfy the NFCC or are missing the necessary documentation play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain civil at all times, avoid biting the newcomers who are the foundation of the project's future growth, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged or ensure that those questions are answered by others.

(Bolding added.) Man, we could sure use a dose of that now. EEng 00:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The way to stop the templating of the regulars is for regulars to stop doing stuff that one gets templated for; there's no particular reason the essay Don't template the regulars should be considered to have precedence over the essay template the regulars. Stefan2's major mistake here was picking the wrong forum, they would have been much better off filing at WP:CP. NE Ent 02:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course there's a reason to value DTTR over TTR: DTTR is in Wikipedia space, while TTR is in one user's space. DTTR has been edited by 107 editors and has 92 watchers, while TTR has only 37 editors and 37 watchers. Clearly, DTTR is a more widely accepted essay that TTR is, and represents the views of a larger slice of the community. BMK (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The quality of a painting isn't measured by brush strokes. NE Ent 22:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Good thing we're talking about consensus and not art. BMK (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What got Betacommand banished was his perpetual insistence on treating other editors like criminals. And the OP here is headed in the same direction. A compromise solution could be to change the text of the templates to read more like friendly cautions than like subpoenas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@NE Ent: In the example I posted above, I was template because someone removed the image from the article to which it related, so Stefan templated me to warn of deletion of the now-orphaned image. Stefan's response was basically that it was easier for me to fix because sometimes the uploader is in the best position to decide - an argument with some validity. In my case, however, Stefan had three files all titled along the lines of "Cover of [JOURNAL NAME]" with a non-free use rationale describing use of a low-res file as the image of the cover of the journal for use on the [JOURNAL NAME] page. Was Stefan really not able to figure out the solution (re-add the image, removed with no good explanation? Of course not. However, templating me was easier for him than actually solving the issue. My issue is if an essentially mindless response is going to be taken, cut out the editor and just use a bot. I was templated in the past (repeatedly) by a bot because the standard format for information on a file page changed. I fixed it because, although the information was all there, a bot couldn't have sorted it out easily but a person could (recent posts to Giano are eerily similar, but coming from another editor). I object to being templated as a way of telling me that someone else has stuffed something up and the template-posting editor won't fix it even when the solution is obvious because templating me is easier for her or him than actually looking at what needs doing. EdChem (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My comment was directed more towards the "don't template the editors," or, even worse WP:Don't template the admins canard than the specific incident here; the issue of Stefan's approach transcends the template, as indicated by the concerns over the Files for deletion EEng previously linked. Your point regarding the use of an impersonal bot to flag these is a good one -- would you like to take the lead on asking the bot people to produce such a thing? NE Ent 22:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought one of the big issues here was that JzG was an experienced editor. Why are we now talking about not biting the newcomers Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• BethNaught mentioned the issue above: "It's about principles: we are a free encyclopaedia". In other words, this report is part of a political campaign to force freedom on all contributors. That's great in principle but the problem is that mindlessly acting as an enforcer of the rules requires certain, shall we say, qualities, and those characteristics often make a user unsuitable for the task. What if the benefits of forcing freedom are outweighed by the problems of driving off good contributors with do what I say and do it now posts on user talk pages? If no one is able to do the job with tact and thought, it might be better if Stefan2 were to find some other hobby. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a useful area of discussion. You will say that forcing freedom is too harmful to be worth it and those people shouldn't he here. Others will say that as freedom is and has always been a fundamental part of the project, the failure of people to follow it would indicate they are the ones who shouldn't be here. As I mentioned above, what started this thread was ultimately a very experienced editor. Both can he called political campaigns or whatever you want. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what started this thread, Stefan's hamhanded, bossy, and I-don't-have-time-to-pay-attention-to-what-you're-saying approach has been a problem for years, and that's what we're discussing now. EEng 02:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Huh. And we wonder why the number of new editors we get is pitiful. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Draw near, new editor, that you may learn from these WP policies conveniently arrayed about me!

We get lots of new editors. They just don't stay. EEng 03:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thats because over the years Wikipedia has attracted a huge number of policies and rules which inhibit 'enjoyment'. It takes a special type of person to find enjoyment following an overly bureucratic process, and most newbies once they encounter Wikipedia's rules (usually as a result of doing something obviously wrong) just go 'no thanks'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's because over the years Wikipedia has attracted too many editors who seem compelled to follow every policy, guideline and essay strictly and with complete and utter rigidity, never using their judgment and intelligence to determine when it's good to be strict, or better for the encyclopedia to break free and do something wild, like actually improving an article instead of worrying about rules, rules, rules, rules, rules. To not become that kind of place is precisely why we have WP:IAR, but IAR has become so watered down over the years that one can almost never invoke it without prompting a hue-and-cry: "No, you can only use IAR to do X", "No, IAR doesn't apply if there's a previous consensus," "No, MOS overrides IAR," "What the hell is IAR?" Editor retention isn't about babying newbies, or about the new gadgets and gee-gahs that the Foundation loves to throw into the software, it's about being serious about making the best damn online encyclopedia possible, one that is accurate, readable, visually interesting, and informative, and showing new editors that that is what we're about. All this other stuff: the drama boards, tagging, user warnings, dispute resolution, ArbCom, and all the talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, is the huge tail which is now in real danger of wagging the dog.

If we show new editors that we are dedicated to building an encyclopedia, the good ones will see the value and fall in line, and the bad and useless ones will be culled or just fade away. Remember, not every editor who joins is one that we need, or want, to retain. BMK (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet even more out-of-control legalism from self-appointed image patrollers

Now the image at left has been nominated for deletion "discussion" -- WP:Files_for_discussion/2016_May_25#File:No_Heels.jpg. This is getting beyond ridiculous, and the entire image-patrolling machinery needs a good housecleaning. EEng 13:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not nominated for deletion. It's up for discussion on whether free or not. I was against the merge for reasons like this, but all the image discussion venues (NFCR, PUF, etc.) have been merged to (formally) Files for Deletion, now named Files for Discussion. Being listed there does not mean that deletion is the result, but to determine if the image should be handled as non-free or not. Since this is the only venue now for such discussions, its completely appropriate to validate the situation there. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion, discussion, whatever. The original work (the sign itself) is obviously a trivial pictogram, and the photo from which this file was derived (by cropping) was appropriately released. This should never have been listed for deletion, discussion, whatever, period. It should have been left alone so editor time could be productively used elsewhere. (And even if there's a concern, it should have been attached to the original uncropped image. As things are now, presumably after this nomination's handled, at some point someone will stumble on the uncropped version, then more time can be wasted scrutinizing that...) More common sense is needed in patrolling, and that's what we should be doing something about here. EEng 14:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as a stupid question". It is 100% fair if one is unsure (and no prior conversation to point to for review) to ask if a free image is really free (and in fact, we should be making sure of this for images that are tagged free - en.wiki should not be mistagging a non-free image as free). Asking on the file's talk page is a very narrow space with almost no watchers, so a venue that has the eyes of people aware of image copyrights and the like make the most sense. It's just unfortunate that the space that it is in was formerly known to be where images were sent for deletion discussions, because it creates a stigma that the discussion is about deleteion. And image copyright and all the issues around it are not simple; it's not a straight-forward checklist that has objective determination. So complaining about this situation is extremely bitey. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So it isn't nominated for deletion, but may or may not be free. If it isn't free, a free version should be found, because it is a caution used on playgrounds with synthetic surfaces in the United States and may be needed to illustrate an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand the point others are making regarding patrolling, but in this instance, if the sign is widely used in the US, wouldn't the easiest way to solve the problem be for a wikipedian to take a photo of the sign and then upload it to commons as their own work? DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest you get a camera and find a playground then. Although given the average age and gender of wikipedia editors you might want to wait til the kids have gone home to avoid problems. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've noted at the FFD discussion, as a US pictograph, the image would easily fall under the Threshold of Originality, meaning it can't be copyrighted; at minimum, a SVG version of the sign could be made as a free image, but I have no reason to believe the current image in question is a problem. I do want to stress that it is completely fair for editors to question if we are properly assigning possible unfree images as free, just to make sure we have proper licensing - its just unfortunate that consensus decided to merge all those types of discussions to FFD as to give the impression that any discussion there is about image deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what's unfortunate is that some image patrollers (not all) don't seem to put their brains in gear before they act, nor do they actually fix entirely simple and self-explanatory problems (you know, what an editor should do), preferring instead to tag the image or the image-uploader. Much of the brouhaha in the connected thread above would not have occurred if even a scintilla of thought had gone into the actions described there, instead of the patroller acting robotically without consideration of all the relevant factors. Although, as Masem says, its reasonable to ask questions of images to determine whether they are free or not, such questions should not be being asked by long-time image patrollers in obvious cases where they should know whether it is or not just by looking at it, thus saving everybody time and energy. BMK (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

And yes, Masem, there are indeed stupid questions. BMK (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to copyright, I strongly disagree that there are stupid questions, unless the question has clearly been asked before and the answer documented. The infinite variations that involve date of creation, date of publication, date of creator death, appropriate markings, foreign copyright terms, the effect of the URAA, the different treatment of TOO and FOP across nations, etc., make the determination of whether an image is PD, copyrighted, or something else far from a trivial question. The above image, for example, I know now is clearly TOO in the US but say 7-8 years ago before getting into image copyrights, I would have doubted that could fall under the TOO. There are obvious cases, yes, but they are far fewer than you imply. Media copyright is one of those critical areas we need to be right on as best we can and can't afford to be wrong. --MASEM (t) 04:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please save the hyperbole. Of course we can afford to be wrong, that's exactly what "fair use" is all about, and why our NFCC is more restrictive then fair use is, so that if we slip up, we're still legally covered. That kind of dire attitude is, I'm afraid, part of the problem. We should certainly take it seriously, just as with any copyright violation, but it's not the death knell of Wikipedia if someone makes an honest mistake. I think the feeling of image patrollers that they're carrying the fate of Wikipedia on their shoulders may be part of the problem here, since it generates a "do or die" attitude that's unpleasant and lacking in AGF. I'm all for deletion of copyright violations (of all kinds, and image patrollers could learn a lesson or two from User:Diannaa, who deals with many text violations in an efficient, firm, but pleasant manner), but I wish some image patrollers had more common sense then they seem to, because they make working with images more difficult and noxious for the uploader than it needs (or is required) to be. BMK (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Long term removal of maintenance templates

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

---

• 173.54.173.53 (talk · contribs)

Account appears to have a single m.o., the removal of maintenance templates from poorly referenced articles. The IP was blocked once, but has continued with dozens of such edits, each of which now require assessment to determine whether they're justified or just vandalism. Most appear to be the latter. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

reported at AIV here. Still needs to be cleaned up after Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll go through and rollback some of the incorrect removals, however, some seem just fine. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted what I can for now, but unfortunately, I'm out of time for tonight. I'd still suggest that each be checked. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've got everything that is current, but there are still some that might be left. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know if there's any specific connection between the IP and the articles. Perhaps a long-term abuser with a particular interest in those articles? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The articles seem more random than anything. I wouldn't be surprised if this was just someone who clicked random article until finding tags that they would proceed to remove. I got most if it now, and it is hard to find anything else that I might have missed. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged for the attention. Though my IP has proved very transient, I've kept an eye on this, and appreciate the assistance. The 173 received a six month block. 2601:188:1:AEA0:F9F3:65F4:64EA:7EEC (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on AN3

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

---

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

---

Would someone please hurry up and block this editor? [44] [45] [46] [47] Toddst1 (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Dennis Brown for edit warring on AN3. Edit warring on AN3 is probably the most ridiculous situation I've seen on Wikipedia. Thanks Dennis. Toddst1 (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Insomnia to the rescue. I didn't look at the merits of the AN3 report and will leave to others, but yeah, edit warring to change the order of who reported who at AN3 is pretty weird. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And now he's socking. There is a WP:CIR issue going on, I fear. Just adding the note to the record. If it keeps up, we might need a CU to look at a range block for a short while. Going back to sleep now.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And here comes Want a Hertz Donut? (talk · contribs) Favonian (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Had to impose a short-term range block on 75.162.0.0/16. Favonian (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

More IP socking

This same user is blatantly obviously socking out of the rangeblock at 174.23.111.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). SPI investigation looking like it's being mired by wikirules. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 16:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

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

And another

Newname0002 (talk · contribs) Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk · contribs) blocked Newname0002 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts) Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Could Newname0004 (talk · contribs) be another? Just a headsup. Perhaps some of the articles they are hitting could be semi-protected for a few days? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 21:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Newname0005 (talk · contribs)? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 21:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There are a slew of additional socks that Favonian keeps whacking. Kudos, bro. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Danke! Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 03:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is accusing me of being a harasser

So yesterday, with the announcement of the recent resignation of an Arbitrator, I noticed in the comments section that @Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: was talking about GamerGate in the section, calling them "freaktards". I commented that calling them freaktards "doesn't exactly give you the high ground in any way." Eventually two other comments were made and then Guerillero hatted the section which is fine. The hatted section was eventually removed by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz and they then commented on Guerillero's talk page, accusing me and the other two of being gamergaters and accusing me of harassing people. Now, I don't know about the other two users and I don't care but being called names and calling me a harasser is uncalled for, imo. Originally I commented on Guerillero's page in that section but I eventually went on their talk page and wrote this. Fourteen minutes later my comment gets reverted, and he calls me a Sea Lion.

I hate that this just happened to me and I cannot stand that being called a harasser by someone who is themselves is assuming WP:BADFAITH on this site. I've been on here for nearly eight years and have never been falsely accused of something like I have just now. GamerPro64 17:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh good heavens. Please just leave me alone. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Have you read WP:Harass, this doesn't even come close to qualifying. And he never even once mentioned you in the posts until you went to his talk page. I think you are seeing things that aren't there. See WP:HA#NOT which states " genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence or postings. Like the word stalk, harass carries real-life connotations" the key word there being repeated. Also see WP:AOHA. His original comments didn't appear to be aimed at any one person in particular. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 19:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He didn't mention me but he grouped me with the other two people and called the grouping "gamergaters". He follows that up by saying "their goal is to harass people wherever they can." By grouping me and calling me a gamergater he accused me of harassment. GamerPro64 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Move to have this idiocy factionalism closed before it turns into another pointless screaming match.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Some sort of warning/advice/something needs to be given at the least to Jeltz. It's becoming all too common for this kind of smearing to occur. Arkon (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tag him with a {{uw-civil}} and be done with it then. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 21:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I find the comments cited above inappropriate. I've left a note about it. Civility templates are not really the ideal way of resolving this, I think. GAB^gab 16:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Persistent unconstructive editing despite warnings (follow-up report)

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

---

In their response to my earlier report (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive923#Persistent abuse of categorization by IP), OlEnglish suggested that we watch to see if 76.88.107.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would improve their editing practices.

This IP has not only not heeded the messages from OlEnglish and myself, but has begun repeating edits that were previously reverted. Examples:

• Cutlass (re-added pirate category, after manual revert by me)
• Queen Anne pistol (re-added pirate category and non-bidirectional navbox, after revert by KgosarMyth)
• Walnut pie (re-added holiday category without source, after revert by me)

As I noted in my earlier report, I believe this is the same individual as 76.88.98.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whose similar edits were interpreted as vandalism and was given a short-term block at one point. The editing pattern also matches 24.165.80.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Either this individual has not read the warning on their talk pages or the edit summaries and is continuing to edit in what they believe to be good faith, or they have read them, but consider other editors to be wrong and will continue repeating their unconstructive edits ad infinitum. (It's also possible they're trolling, but I see no evidence to indicate this level of bad faith.) In any case, I believe a temporary block of at least one week will encourage them to engage in discussion and read the relevant guidelines. Ibadibam (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing. Open to review by other admins if anyone disagrees. -- œ^™ 01:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk:Electronic harassment

Very aggressive 87.3.91.177 (talk · contribs), WP:CIVIL/ WP:3RR; basically WP:NOTHERE. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

87.3.91.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

87.1.112.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

87.6.119.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

95.252.92.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

82.59.58.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a rotating IP, aggressively trolling, asking to be blocked. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Staszek Lem - When you report a user here, you should notify them. I agree that the "discussion" is out of control. An effort was made to discuss at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but it failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP rotates, so Talk page messages have no effect. Diff of their latest: Undid revision 721756007 by MjolnirPants (talk) - me neither you fucking scumbag... I'm waiting for the IP block I've been threatened with - you'll see it will come soon). - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I was the moderator at DRN. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

He really is repeating the same flimsy, WP:FRINGE argument. WP:THETRUTH applies here. If he actually was reasonable to logically debate, and admit consensus is against him, we could help the article. But that's not happening. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not just a fringe argument. It is a self-defeating argument. If everything that he says is true, then he has no reason to try to say it here, because he says that Wikipedia is part of the conspiracy. He is therefore wasting pixels. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Note: 87.3.91.177 (talk · contribs) Was blocked by @Orangemike: for 1 week for Disruptive Editing (account creation blocked) --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

In other words if he is still editing under another IP its WP:Block Evasion --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I also suggest someone checkuser this guy against Jed? Might as well kill two birds with one stone if possible.142.105.159.60 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time we've had problems at this article, although my memory is failing me as to the details of the previous problems. I won't yet, but if needed, we might have to semiprotect the article AND talk page. I know this cuts out legitimate IPs, but a day or two may be needed on the talk page if he keeps coming back. The admin tools are rather limited. and that one IP is 87.0.0.0 - 87.15.255.255, which is a huge range, way beyond blocking. I didn't check the other IPs and their ranges, but the point being that a range block isn't going to work here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

previous problems: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Beautifulpeoplelikeyou Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart says that he is in Australia. The IPs are in Italy. The good-faith assumption is that Jed really is in Australia, and that the IP is someone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart? Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Jed Stuart has been involved in the discussion as well as the IPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Just semi-protect the page, it will get rid of the IP's. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've semiprotected both the article and talk page, after a complaint at WP:AN3. The IPs listed above don't appear to be the same person as User:Jed Stuart. As noted, trying to stop the inappropriate talk page edits with a range block would not be practical. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Persistent POV-pushing and active socking

• List of European cities by population within city limits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits#Rfc: How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe?

Denghu is actively edit warring to claim his home town as the largest city in Europe, both with his own account and the sock account 194.28.238.3 [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. This is a beharioval issue, but as Denghu repeatedly claims in edit summaries that his is the WP:TRUTH, I point out that an RfC was held on exactly this topic, with the decision being to count all of Istanbul. As Denghu is actively edit-warring against the outcome of the RfC, and employs an IP-sock alongside his regular account, I think it's a behavioral issue for ANI. As for Denghu being the sock-master of the IP, it's an obvious case with both accounts doing exactly the same edits, sometimes the IP even starts and Denghu finishes it. Most notably, the IP even modified Denghus user page [54], removing any doubt about the socking. Jeppiz (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to say I do not think your report has merit. They indeed added sources and they engaged in the talk page discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

All true, but Denghu also (1) actively socked, (2) ignored the RfC on the topic, (3) edit warred with several users. I'm unfamiliar with any policy that allows using socks and edit warring against the outcome of an RfC if one uses sources and the talk page. Jeppiz (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

So many accusations against me, some sound stretched, some are simply untrue. Good to see that complaints of this kind are dismissed. Denghu (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Denghu, so you're claiming the IP 194.28.238.3 is not you? Just to be clear? Jeppiz (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, my claim is that you assume something about my behaviour which is not true. There was no intent on my part to pretend to be someone else or deceive someone -- something that the term socking suggests. I also find your use of terms such as 'nationalist' inflammatory when commenting on the incident. Could you please explain yourself. Denghu (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Explain myself? I think I did, but ok, once more. In a recent edit war, both you and your IP sock took turns to revert. That is certainly against policy; at least that's what I thought. Jeppiz (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not very clear that 194.28.238.3 is a sock of Denghu, though Denghu will receive no compliments for giving such a vague answer regarding his possible use of an IP. I've semiprotected the article for two months due to the participation of IPs who revert without using the talk page. In my opinion, neither Denghu nor Jeppiz should revert again before getting a clear talk page consensus. The result of the RfC is vague, so it's not clear who is reverting against it. A better RfC might be considered. If reverts continue, the next logical step may be blocks or full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The result of the RfC is by no means vague; "Display the full population and note the split in footnotes where relevant" is quite certain in its terms. However if people would like it then a second RfC can always be opened to challenge the previous one. Until a new consensus is achieved, the old RfC should remain in effect. Shouldn't it? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps User:MelanieN who opened the RfC is willing to comment on whether she finds the RfC result to be decisive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I opened that discussion without having an opinion one way or the other; my aim was just to settle the issue. It seems to me that the closure - "a general consensus seems to have emerged. Display the full population and note the split in footnotes where relevant" - was clear and decisive. But I have no objection if someone wants to open a new discussion on the issue. Consensus can change. And I have no comment about the current controversy; I haven't been following it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Promotion/Vandalism only account User:प्रशान्त पाण्डेय

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

---

User:प्रशान्त पाण्डेय is spamming Wikipedia with misleading data and sometimes replacing www.barb.co.uk with with www.barc.co.in, an Indian company website with a edit summary Fixed grammar such as [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] and many many more!--Aisonajulk ^chat 15:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You are required to notify the editor of this discussion. I've done that for you. Katie^talk 19:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them for 72h for vandalism. This is not vandalism-only account, they also seem to have good edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by User:165.225.32.70

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

---

Hello. User:165.225.32.70 has recently been engaged in a spat of POV-pushing at various articles related to medieval Bulgaria. This editor has been unresponsive when asked for sources or discussion at User talk:165.225.32.70, and has unilaterally and repeatedly reverted any edits to bring these articles in line with what the cited academic sources say, and with WP:COMMONNAME. I am therefore following the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing to request an administrator’s aid. Example diffs: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], etc. Thank you, Vorziblix (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've given him the standard 3RR warning. If he persists, WP:AN3 is thataway. Katie^talk 19:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. However, this still leaves the articles (Boris I of Bulgaria, Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, and Zograf monastery) as they stand with the IP editor’s changes, which are inaccurate regarding the content of the actual cited sources (particularly John Fine’s The Early Medieval Balkans). I am reluctant to revert these myself, as I do not want to perpetuate an edit war. What are the appropriate steps to take to ensure that these articles reflect what the sources say without engaging in an edit war? —Vorziblix (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Further info at the talk page (section: Boris/Fine). The user continues to disrupt with edit warring, ignoring RS, and declining to discuss, despite warnings. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the further editwarring, I've blocked the IP address. Consider the following phrase:

Text, text, and more text<ref>Citation</ref>

The citation is a claim that the text ahead of it (here "Text, text, and more text") is derived from the cited source; if it's not derived from it, we have a hoax on our hands, and intentional hoaxes are vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping edit warrior

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

---

• 2604:2000:F20E:2800:80E8:CD5E:2598:EAB9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2604:2000:F20E:2800:D9C5:2EB:D3A9:3B17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are the latest active IP's of an edit warrior who's active on Israel and Palestine related articles. Edits are stuff like switching mentions of Palestine with Israel, etc. User has a history of these kinds of edits on these articles, so it might be a good idea to semi-protect these articles as the user seems to hop between IP's. Eik Corell (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Which articles? There are hundreds (thousands?) of Israel and Palestine-related articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Check the contributions list of those two IP's, and of their earlier sock Anti-Śemites blown to smitherines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The articles edited by the IP's above seem to be their primary focus, though. There is another report here on this user, I'll look through the archives for it. Eik Corell (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Easier to place a /64 range block if this person is editing disruptively. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

And that's just what I did. 2604:2000:F20E:2800::/64 blocked two weeks for disruption. If it is block evasion and he returns, I'd be willing to block as long as three months. Katie^talk 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for posterity, I found the last AN/I report here. What a mess. Eik Corell (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Numerous problems with an editor of Economic stagnation

User EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in POV pushing and edit warring on Economic stagnation

• POV pushing- Boldly and aggressively asserts her POV with complete disregard of the facts by promoting the issue of economic inequality. (She actually admitted to bias on Talk:Economic stagnation)
• Disruptive edits- posting phony tags, reverts
• Failure to adequately discuss in Talk- she has never satisfactorily replied to a single request to explain her edits
• Makes false claims about what sources actually say and feels justified in doing so.

Her latest disruptive edit replaced this version [[66]] with the current version. This copmletely disrupts the article for the purpose of trying to post something about income inequality following the lede and putting the explanation of the term and the current debate about stagnation at the end of the article.

There is enough information on Talk:Economic stagnation to prove without any doubt that she is biased and POV pushing, misrepresenting facts and is not engaged in good faith talk discussions.

EllenCT has consistently tried to take over economic articles to push her POV on income inequality. Past encounters with her involved Economic growth and United States where she was defeated by several opposing editors. She engages in long, drawn out edit wars and phony Talk discussions that waste everyone's time. Phmoreno (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Phmoreno's history of trying to gain advantages in content disputes by ANI complaints, the linked instance having resulted in a boomerang. This instance is quite similar. Phmoreno is trying to use the economic stagnation article to push the fringe "secular stagnation" theory, which the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources show has never been borne out by facts and has always been disproven. Phmoreno favors secular stagnation theory because of his politically motivated support for associated and similarly discredited supply-side economics used to support trickle-down and austerity policies. I urge administrators to review the talk page discussion and article history carefully. Please note that Phmoreno takes apparent pride in rejecting our reliable source criteria when trying to advance WP:PRIMARY research reports for which he can find no support in the peer reviewed academic literature review secondary sources. I ask that he be restricted from editing on the topic of economics for at least six months and until he can agree to follow the reliable source criteria on WP:PSTS. I deny the allegations of bias other than towards the conclusions of the consensus of peer reviewed secondary sources, and I deny all the other allegations made above as obvious lies as examination of the article's talk page and the sources cited clearly show. EllenCT (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Having examined the talkpage I can see a number of arguments (assuming good faith) over content primarily between the both of you. Have you considered third party mediation? I prodded Volunteer Marek to comment as he has also edited there. But EllenCT, after reading that talk page, when it comes down to content, I generally agree with most of Phmoreno points. He has provided plenty of source-backed arguments which you have (despite being asked to) on a number of occasions been unable/unwilling to actually explain why and where you think they are correct. You clearly *do* have a specific POV (as anyone can see who has followed your economic-based discussions in a number of areas, including Jimbo's talk page) regarding certain economic issues which I think may be clouding your objectivity here. You dont agree with Phmoreno's position on certain subjects, but that is not reason to exclude their editing. This is certainly not 'superior' to this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree with Volunteer Marek's repeated requests on the article's talk page that Phmoreno's favored "secular stagnation" theory be moved out into its own separate article? Do you agree with Marek's complaint that Phmoreno has been conflating and synthesizing multiple distinct secular stagnation theories?

Why do you suggest that the version presenting "secular stagnation" as fact in the first sections of the article is superior to the version which considers the international perspective first?

I most certainly am biased: towards the consensus conclusions of actual peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews on the subject, and against those who would try to use primary research papers without support in the secondary sources, or even less reliable sources, to push politically motivated fringe theories. Just because those consensus conclusions are congruent with certain political positions should not be construed to imply that I am trying to push them for political gain; only that I am clearly trying to improve the encyclopedia against the wishes of those who are trying to push fringe theories without any such WP:SECONDARY support. I have repeatedly complained about this continuing situation here, at Arbcom, and on Jimbo's talk page because Jimbo's pre-Wikipedia association with Objectivist anarcho-capitalists has resulted in widespread systemic bias across dozens if not hundreds of economics articles. EllenCT (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless the 'Stagnation' article is overly large, I dont favour splitting it out. But 'secular stagnation' does have enough commentry and sourcing to stand alone if that was the consensus to split it. But thats the point, thats an editing discussion for an RFC, not a behavioural one. RE 'anarcho-capitalists' the problem is you see them everywhere. You give too much credence to Jimbo's opinions and past economical leanings - you certainly give them far more credit for influencing wikipedia than actually is the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As I have pointed out repeatedly on the article's talk page, [67] documents the evidence that secular stagnation has never held true, e.g. in the third and fourth sentences of it's abstract. Why do you believe it should be included? Do you have objective evidence that I have overestimated the influence of supply siders, trickle down proponents, and austerity advocates in Wikipedia, or is it just a personal opinion about me because I am one of the few who have not given up on countering the systemic bias? Have you reviewed the several years long history of what happens to professional academic economists who try to edit in accordance with actual peer reviewed literature reviews, against the wishes of far more numerous amateur supply side enthusiasts? Unless you have actual evidence in support of your opinion, I feel that your characterization of my assessment of the situation from years editing on the topics is ill-informed at best and verges on a baseless personal attack. EllenCT (talk)

"Do you have objective evidence that I have overestimated the influence of supply siders, trickle down proponents, and austerity advocates in Wikipedia," No. Nor do I need to provide any. As the person asserting that multiple wikipedia editors over a period of years have deliberately skewed economic articles due to being 'supply siders' 'trickle down proponents' and 'austerity advocates' the onus of proof is on you. I should point out that charactising editing opponents as 'supply siders' 'austerity advocates' etc amply demonstrates your lack of objectivity in the area. Either learn to settle content disputes amicably amongst yourselves or seek mediation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I doubt there could be any more compelling proof than that you agree with Phmoreno's inclusion of a discredited supply-side theory at the top of the article against the conclusions of the reliable source documenting its sub-fringe historical status, against the wishes of the person you suggested mediate the dispute, and without reference to any sources suggesting it is anything more than an attempt to provide cover for those who have benefitted financially from giving terrible advice in the corridors of power. I strongly suspect you consider yourself completely neutral and moderately well informed on the topic, but the reality is that astroturfed propaganda has generally resulted in a majority of people who disagree with the vast consensus conclusions of the peer reviewed secondary economic literature. Does saying so demonstrate a lack of objectivity? Does it demonstrate a lack of objectivity to point out that far more people than professional scientists disbelieve anthropogenic climate change because of astroturfed propaganda? Or to point out that far more medical doctors than laypeople in the US think universal healthcare coverage such as the next 19 most wealthy countries enjoy saves money and extends lifespans, because of astroturfed insurance company propaganda? Or to point out that a half century ago many if not most people thought cigarettes had health benefits because of corporate propaganda? If someone is clearly editing as if austerity is just, decent, and good, why does calling them an austerity advocate demonstrate a lack of objectivity?

I would love to have the issue mediated, but have tried before, and my opponents have never agreed, because they know I am editing correctly according to our reliable source criteria, and so they would likely not prevail. EllenCT (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT has gone rogue and acted against consensus with her latest edit. It also appears she created a separate article for secular stagnation even though no consensus was reached. Her talk comments are a combination of misrepresented sources, outright lies and nonsense and her behavior is getting more irrational. She has a history of this type behavior and unless she is cut short she will once again waste everyone else's time and we will have seriously disrupted article.Phmoreno (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno is referring to [68] and [69] which were repeatedly requested by Marek on Talk:Economic stagnation. EllenCT (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus for splitting the article. EllenCT's motive was to put the Economic stagnation#Internationally following the lede. The Internationally section is disputed content and is not correctly portrayed in relation to economic stagnation. EllenCT was told before (above and by me on Talk) that her proposed article arrangement wasn't acceptable. EllenCT is desperately trying to push her POV and is posting fake reasons for her edits along with making false claims about sources, both on Economic stagnation and Economic growth.Phmoreno (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Splitting the article was repeatedly requested on the talk page, and no substantive reasons to refrain from doing so have been stated. In the interest of compromise, the contents have been duplicated at the end of the article and a citation has been requested for the unsupportable claim that secular stagnation theory has "usually" instead of "always" been proven wrong. @Phmoreno: do you object to the per-capita instead of per-country representation of growth in the Economic stagnation#Internationally section? If so, why? Please strike your false claims of misrepresenting sources because you are unable to substantiate them. EllenCT (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The claim about warnings of "secular stagnation have always been proven wrong" is not true. Japan has been in secular stagnation for almost 25 years. Also, I am going discuss a journal article related to stagnation discussing the "break after 1910", which the authors called "the onset of persistent secular stagnation". As for the section Economic stagnation#Internationally, neither of the sources discusses economic stagnation and inclusion of this section is synthesis. Phmoreno (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You have a history of making false statements and misrepresenting sources. Several times I compared your edits with the citations and not only did I find them to be inaccurate but in case of the one of the papers you cited in Economic growth, the conclusion was the opposite of your cherry-picked statement. Most recently see Volunteer Marek's comment at the end of Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular stagnation theory "disputed neutrality". There numerous other examples. Phmoreno (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

One of EllenCT's reviews:

EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Wikipedia. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior. I could not have said it better.VictorD7's comment

Phmoreno (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT is still making changes against Talk and under false pretenses. Is there anything that can be done to stop this?Phmoreno (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that VictorD7 was the recipient of Phmoreno's earlier boomerang linked in my first reply above. EllenCT (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That is no excuse for your unacceptable behavior, of which there is a long history. I'm very disappointed that Wikipedia tolerates Internet trolls like you.Phmoreno (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How do you think editors feel about your repeated attempts to prevail in content disputes using baseless allegations to administrators, instead of learning our reliable source criteria and neutrally summarizing the consensus of the peer reviewed academic literature reviews on the subjects you edit? It's beyond disappointing; it's an affront to the quality of the encyclopedia and tends to bring the project into disrepute when third parties in the media see such bias. It shows a lack of WP:COMPETENCE at best and is clearly disruptive. EllenCT (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply to EllenCT:

• "...leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them..."
• "...sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk."
• "She's also thoroughly incompetent..." Phmoreno (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not necessary for me to dignify these allegations with any further response. I urge administrators to examine the links provided by both sides if there is any question about what is going on again here. EllenCT (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing, BLP Revenge editing, and laughable accusations of sockpuppetry by WikiEditorial101

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

---

• 24 May User:Rjensen deletes content added by WikiEditorial101. [70] This is the only time any of their edits have ever overlapped. [71]
• Pretty much the first thing he does after having his edit reverted by Jensen is to tag Jensen's Wikipedia BLP for issues, and complain about how the whole thing is clearly being maintained by him and his friends.[72][73]
• He then canvasses 3 different people to the article, who he thinks will agree with him.[74][75][76]
• And also accuses me and User:Fyddlestix of being Jensen's socks.[77][78]

Can someone please do something about this? Brustopher (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just as a factual comment, RJensen has substantially edited their own biography, so while the motive behind tagging it may be up for review, it is a valid placement. That people edit warred to remove it deserves trouts all round however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• I would also point out that I would be innately suspicious of anyone who has spent time massaging the article to remove/downplay negative aspects of the subject. (Keep in mind at the moment the article still gives the impression cited to 2015 that RJensen still thinks No Irish is a myth despite a multitude of evidence.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Reading the sources its not that he thinks they did not exist altogether, merely that they were very rare, so the statement added was indeed untrue. Also I've generally tend to take a conservative approach to BLPs and "massage" them regardless of subject. If we were to deduce my POV through that angle I'd be a radical Islamist, Islamophobe, Feminist, Misogynist, Racist, Murder, GMO scientist, anti-GMO advocate, creationist, Tory MP, Labour MP, Left wing student, right wing commentator (and probably some other things I've forgotten) apologist. Brustopher (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Academic biographies are one of my main interests on wikipedia, I edit them a lot. While Mr. Jensen probably shouldn't have edited his own bio (and I would advise him against doing so in the future), the article isn't that bad, and any abuse of COI editing appears to have been quite mild in this case. I suggest that the tag should stay until someone can do a thorough review of the article (I started on this last night but then ran out of time) and Mr. Jensen agrees to stop editing his own bio and make edit requests on talk instead (the usual COI procedure). The notability tag was silly from the start (he's obviously notable) and should be removed. The suggestion that I'm a sock or have a COI on the article is preposterous - I've never met Mr. Jensen and only know about him & his article through a BLPN posting. The user making such accusations should be given a stern warning. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• On one hand, Wikieditorial's actions were remarkably petty, but on the other, they were all valid actions. I'd say that WikiEditorial gets a warning, then Jensen's article get a good once-over and watched for a while.142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am sorry but I strongly disagree. The claim here is that WikiEditorial101 had a content dispute with Rjensen and then went and attacked the WP article about that editor. (yes I am using the word "attacked") and has since then has been making very personalized attacks on Rjensen and others (re the claims about socking). Rjensen has been editing their own article and this is not good is true; some of the content changes by Wikieditor are valid, yes. Rjensen has been editing since 2005 and does not seem to be aware as to how community consensus has moved on COI issues over the years - I will raise this with him on his talk page.

But in my view WikiEditorial101 is in violation of WP:BLPCOI here. He/she is carrying out a dispute with Rjensen that started elsewhere via the article about Rjensen. This can never happen in Wikipedia. So...

I propose a 24 hour block for WikiEditorial101 and I hope this gets done swiftly before these problems escalate further. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (redact per below Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC))

After I posted that I went to Wikipeditorial's talk page and said that I think they violated BLPCOI and asked them to walk away from the article. They said they already had walked away, so a block seems unnecessary. They don't seem to understand the BLPCOI violation, but hopefully they won't stray into that again.

I also asked RJensen to step away from the article while this acute issue is getting worked out, and he agreed. I also offered to work through the longer term issues with him after this acute situation calms, and he agreed to that too. So I think this can be closed. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

GentleCollapse16

This user has been ornery in the past to me, but in response to my recent addition to the article Maxinquaye, he posted comments at the article's talk page, in the section of an archived RfC, deriding my contributions and attacking me ([79], [80], [81]). The RfC that was meant to address a past complaint of his has expired and been considered "obsolete" in its closing, yet the editor has not moved on. Dan56 (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A past ANI complaint was made regarding the editor, claiming personal attacks and aggressive editing ([82]). Dan56 (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And those claims were rejected, with KoshVorlon opining that "GentleCollapse16 is being reasonable", Diannaa saying she "can find no vandalism or personal attacks", and Begoon suggesting the reporter "should withdraw or apologise, or support this with diffs". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add on this user's attacks @Boing! said Zebedee:? Dan56 (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, @Boing! said Zebedee:, I asked you, do you have anything to say about the attacks the user directed towards me?? Dan56 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not examined your current claim, no. My point was simply that you should not try to dig up extra dirt on somebody where it doesn't exist, as it won't inspire people to try to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Template edit needed post TfD closure

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

---

The locked {{missing information}} needs the {{tfd}} removing from it now that the discussion has been closed - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 20. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Katie^talk 14:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible to remove two admins from me?

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

---

Please consider: first, context: My recent block for “canvassing” does not appear to be in accordance with the blocking policy page. Please see my TALK page for the block notice and my unblock requests for explanation and context, if you're interested in looking into this (I'm not going to repeat it all here to keep this of a reasonable length)..

The policy page suggests A. I should have been warned/educated instead of immediately blocked for this. B. block should not be punitive C. there was no ongoing, disruptive behavior (this was a single good-faith mistake in past that was not ongoing) D. Blocks should be no longer than needed. E. at least two of the admins involved have a history with me that began many months ago when I was brand new to editing..

Regarding Coffee: please see my bottom TALK thread “Block Duration”...Coffee's behavior there seemed quite threatening and bullying to me (ie if you don't shut up I'm going to ban you forever!)Coffee also continuously misrepresented my statements in that thread and above (just below my final unblock request).

Regarding Laser Brain: this person also had a conflict with me months back when I first started editing..they have been following me since, it seems...and have continuously inserted themselves onto my talk page in quite negative ways. Laser Brain actually denied my previous unblock requests twice in a row, which is against policy according to the page..In fact, these two individuals are the people who instated 3 of my 4 blocks if you look at the log. And Laser Brain has denied 3 out of my last 4 unblock requests, which is against policy.

All things considered, is it possible to have these two admins not deal with me in the future and have that be enforced? That is, have them move on to other matters and have other admins in the admins universe deal with me if needed in the future? I feel I am being bullied away from editing Wikipedia by them...(I expect them to be along to state how horrible I am but please note my history which displays the hundreds upon hundreds of beneficial contributions I've made all across Wikipedia). Thank you for your time.68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You might want to duck the WP:BOOMERANG heading your way. You were told not just by these admins but MANY other editors that your edits were disruptive, and your canvassing was also disruptive. Your block log, especially recently, seems to back this up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid future problems.68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet attracting current ones, it appears. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocking administrator comment - I think it's best if I just let this IP's editing history speak for itself. (I'll note again that my 72 hour block was extremely lenient for their 4th block in a two month time span.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note: as I referenced above 3 of my 4 blocks were instated by these two admins...and laser brain has single handedly denied 3/4 of my last unblock requests, which is against policy...so this person citing that I've been blocked 4 times needs to be carefully considered in context..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The easiest recipe: do not edit disruptively, do not make personal attacks, do not engage into canvassing, then you will not be blocked for the fifth time, and you will not have to file an unblock request.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Well, in context, after reviewing your edits and the blocks that resulted... the blocks are good. Had I seen that pattern of behavior, despite warnings and previous blocks, I would have blocked as well. Further, I probably would have blocked for a lot longer than 3 days. The fact that the same admin performed more than one of those blocks shows not that they were gunning for you or whatever, but that they continued to monitor the situation after the first block. They know the facts - so I trust their analysis, especially since it matches my own. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

that block only required a warning and a link to "canvassing" page...the justification for blocking me was that I'd been blocked in the past (by them!)..this is disruptive to Wikipedia as I could no longer participate in things I'd helped to initiate for the benefit of the encyclopedia...I'd like them to step aside from me to avoid future problems that interfere with the encyclopedia..and have others deal with me in the future..even you..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that you've posted this on one of the most heavily watched noticeboard for administrators, I think the odds that other admins will monitor your conduct are pretty good. And I'll watchlist your talk page and the AFD as well. But I'm not going to tell these two admins to lay off - the blocks were justified and within policy. I will say that a really easy way to not get blocked for canvassing is to not canvass. We announce AFDs at the AFD log, on the article itself, and now at ANI. Anyone who is active and interested is now aware of the AFD. So there's no further need to notify anyone directly. So don't. Easy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

right, the canvassing only required a notice and link to canvassing page..which is why the block is concerning, considering the justification was previous blocks--all largely made by the same people...and Laser Brain's repetitive denial of unblock requests is against policy and especially concerning considering our history..I'd like these two to step aside, either voluntarily or at the request of other admins...other admins are perfectly capable of dealing with me in the future...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not likely, given the circumstances. They acted appropriately - the fact that they could have taken other steps does not mean that the steps they did take are inappropriate. But on the upside, if they do violate policy there'll be a bunch of admins to catch them at it. So that's a thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I will also add your talk page and the AfD to my watchlist to help alleviate your concerns. I don't see any incorrect actions by the admins already involved, but if you would like fresh eyes you have them. HighInBC 14:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that. part of my concern is that I'm no one else is overseeing all of this..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

People are watching, they have been all along. HighInBC 14:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

well, I'd like them to step in if something odd seems to be going on..see my most recent response to Ultraexactzz above..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The AFD has been on my watchlist since I created it for you. I added your talk page to my watchlist today after I saw a note on the AFD about your block. There are enough people watching that anything will be caught. -- GB fan 15:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm satisfied and appreciate that other admins have stated their willingness to keep an eye on things. I suppose nothing more is needed for now. Thank you very much for your time.68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Sock account, creating contentious categories

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

---

See Category:People who wrote their own Wikipedia entry and Guest11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This experienced user created the account specifically to commit what they knew would be a contentious and controversial action specifically to avoid connection to their main account. This is clearly in contravention of WP:SOCK. Can someone please keep an eye on this and take any action they want. I'm inclined to block myself, but they're probably experienced enough to know how to try to Wikilawyer around it in someway. This account, however, does not appear to be up to any good. Comment? --Jayron32 14:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I see it's been deleted three four times today already- who created the first one? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

He did. His only action at this account has been to create the category, then assign it to a single BLP. --Jayron32 14:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have only recently begun working on Wikipedia so have no yet added other BLPs to the category, my apologies. I look forward to discussion on the category. --User:Guest11111

I think what's being considered problematic User:Guest11111 is that if, as you say, you are a new editor, creating arcane categories such as that is an odd thing to begin with. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, do you mean that this category has been created before? If so, please indicate where it has come under discussion. Thank you, User:Guest11111

here, Guest. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That is from yesterday, when I created the category. This category is not arcane in any sense and fits all guidelines as far as I can tell. Please put forward an argument if you think otherwise; if not, please add to the category page. --User:Guest11111

Propose block of the category creator. (Leaving duration to be decided, probably depending on the socking Note: editor has come close to edit-warring over this. Suggest WP:NOTHERE applies.) But anyone who recreates the same item after it has been repteatedly deleted is clearly not listening to us. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is the user that created this sock? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no sock. This is a perfectly legitimate category and I am shocked that a few users are so caught up in their edit attacks that they refuse to even acknowledge that fact, or at least disagree with it reasonably. I can't think of a more off-putting community I've joined in recent times. Anyone who disagrees with this category existing ought to go ahead and say why. I look forward to discussion. --Guest11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Update: If no majority disagrees with this category existing here or on the help page here then I hope to see the category page return within a day or two.

Side note, Jayron32 and Bbb23 have deleted my addition to [83] but the page makes clear that this is a relevant phenomenon, and the category [84] should be referenced there as well, as I had it. Thanks to all --Guest11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I've blocked Guest11111 as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Optakeover

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

---

Supposedly this is unconstructive: [85]. They added this harassing message: [86]. They edit so fast that it is obvious that they use a robot. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Swoosh smack. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 14:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Optakeover: Yes, he uses HAL 9000 nowadays I believe. What are you doing, Captain? We ask all the time, but, meh, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that the discussion was reopened (for now), I just wanted to say that I would like to think I work like HAL 9000 :P Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If what I did was unconstructive, please move Shotgun surgery to Shotgun Surgery. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edit introduced a typo and looked to an outsider like a test edit. You were left a very polite message. You are not being harassed. I am closing this now as it is the best thing for you. HighInBC 14:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have unclosed this as the primary reason for the close was to avoid a boomerang. This is now moot. Unclosing to discuss unfolding events. HighInBC 15:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a typo. I read the message as "replacing superfluous uppercase by lowercase is unconstructive". This is not polite. Saying "you inserted a Greek letter" would have been polite. Also the Swoosh smack is unpolite.

Please unblock User talk:167.107.191.217. It is not an open proxy. HaŋaRoa (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The block was by Widr[87] and seems to be based on the IP being reported as an open proxy. Perhaps you can talk to User:Widr if you have concerns about this block. HighInBC 15:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: The discussion has resumed at User talk:Floquenbeam#Please unblock User talk:167.107.191.217. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Lets get this straight:

1. IP makes a (constructive) change to the capitalisation in the header and inadvertantly introduces a character that stops the heading.

2. Optakeover then templates the IP stating they have been reverted as their edit was not constructive - rather than just removing the extra character.

3. IP leaves a snarky and not particularly civil message on Optakeover's talkpage incorrectly capitalised pointing out why their template was unwelcome.

4. Optakeover reverts on their talkpage and templates IP *again* with an entirely incorrect 'vandalism' warning. Hint: Uncivil but direct posts on your talkpage attempting to address the template you left them are not 'vandalism'.

5. IP understandably miffed at this point replies again attempts to explain.

So far I would suspect any editer reverting like that and leaving automated templates that are incorrect is operating a bot or other automated program without due care and attention. Given that Optakeover is using both twinkle and huggle, accusing them of being a robot is not actually that much a reach.

6. IP has now been blocked as an open proxy despite editing from a static corporate IP assigned to Experian - a large UK credit checking company (I dont know its US presence) so its just editing from a corporate network. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It even says on the top of the page that the IP belongs to Experian and can be shared by many users on the enterprise domain. There is certainly no need to block since it's not an open proxy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked as per discussion on Floquenbeam's talk page: User talk:Floquenbeam#Please unblock User talk:167.107.191.217. Mike1901 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: The problem with my second warning is that I pressed Q. I should have selected a more appropriate warning but since the first warning was appropriate, and I assumed that the second edit was in bad faith as it was a repeat of the first, I didn't think I really needed to do otherwise. Lesson learnt is I should select the appropriate notice and to check the edit properly. However I believe that what really made the IP angry was that he messaged me on my talk page first, but I failed to reply him (owing to busyness). Therefore I guess he decided to seek recourse here. I guess I will apologise again that my response to his post could have been nicer, but the point still stands that the IP should have checked that his report was actually truly the case. Anyway, we have killed the horse too much already.. I have made my apologies and clarifications to all the involved parties. Out, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You bringing this here is inappropriate, as Optakeover merely saw that you had added a typo and subsequently reverted it. There's just as much cause to revert your edit as there is to simply remove the typo, so I'm not going to hold either side at fault on that matter. However, yes, please don't bring this to AN/I for such a small event- I'm honestly surprised there has been this much discussion thus far. I think everything that needs to be said and done has been said and done, so let's close this discussion and walk away. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat on 3RR noticeboard?

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

---

Here: [88] Mike1901 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Definite legal threat. And libellous as well. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup. I've blocked indef (simply because I wasn't sure what duration would be appropriate), and will amend the duration as needed. I haven't looked at the underlying issue, though it seems that the IP has some pretty strong feelings on the matter. The IP also appears to be edit warring at University of Buckingham. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The block is correct. We block indefinitely until they retract their threats and are satisfied that it won't continue. It is really the only duration for these cases. Some effort should be taken to consider the validity of their concerns. HighInBC 14:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't indefintely block IPs. The duration should be reduced.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You are of course correct, I was thinking it was a user at the time. I stand corrected. HighInBC 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No objection, as soon as someone tells me what to reduce it to. This isn't a drive by, I can adjust it as necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The precise duration is discretionary. If it were my block, I would reduce it to one month, which is approximately the amount of time this person has been using the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I just tweaked it to 1 year: Long enough to eliminate the problem, but not so long as to catch an innocent when the IP inevitably gets reset. --Jayron32 15:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and uncited speculation by IP

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

---

Today, User:66.185.43.66 added material to Railway engines (Thomas & Friends) indicating a character "may" be returning [89]. I reverted the addition as uncited speculation [90]. I was reverted by the IP [91]. I then placed a {{uw-unsourced2}} warning on the IP's talk page [92], and reverted the re-addition of the uncited content [93]. The IP ignored the warning, and restored the uncited content again [94] using an insulting edit summary. I've placed edit warring notices and a {{uw-npa3}} warning on the IP's talk page. Other eyes, please. IP has been informed of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: The user will probably soon be blocked for harassment, as seen in his edit summaries. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: 66.185.43.66 (talk · contribs) was blocked by @KrakatoaKatie: for 31 hours for Vandalism --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 01:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

IP editor on Eric Fanning

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

---

An IP editor, apparently the same person working from 128.103.150.72 and 65.112.10.181 and 70.192.0.242, has several times named Fanning's domestic partner, though we have no citation for more than a boyfriend. Diffs here and here and here. There has been discussion on the Talk page and appropriate info has been added to the body of Fanning's WP entry as you can see in this diff. The entry is BLP. The editor's comments suggest that further discussion is fruitless, notably "Google it. I'll edit this each time you take it down. I am inclined to cite "I don't give a fuck"." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Caucasianium

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

---

Account which avoids discussion, violates WP:NPA instead, continues edit-warring and is possibly a sock puppet of User:SmartXT. I don't know where to report this best. Also the article Criminal case Lisa F. should be blocked for new/IP users. I wrote on his talk page, wanted to discuss with him, but was insulted only.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not know whether they are a sock or not (likely they are), but they are clearly WP:NOTTHERE, therefore blocked for an indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick reaction.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Is IMDB a reliable source?

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

---

Dont know it if belongs here. Im don't want to get into an edit war with this IP editor on List of natural horror films. He's been adamant that IMDB is a reliable source. It is a user-generated film fan site. I had removed 10+ imdb sources and he just reverts me. Can someone look at it? Iridona (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I know I just responded to you on your talk page, but again from WP:USERGENERATED:

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites.

IMDB is not to be used as a reilable source. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

but doesn't the page need citations to prove that the movies are real and they feature those monsters? there are also many wikipedia pages that use imdb --24.184.132.160 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS/IMDB is the relevant link. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

24.184.132.160, all content on Wikipedia does indeed need a reliable source. The point here is that IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source. If other wikipedia pages are using imdb for their citations, they are doing so incorrectly. --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

okay, i understand --24.184.132.160 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Another legal threat...

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

---

Here: [95] (seem to be attracting them today for some reason....) Mike1901 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. I will message the blocked user. --Yamla (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Emperorofthedaleks and Steve Boone editor - surname articles

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

---

I have concerns about edits by Emperorofthedaleks (talk · contribs) to surname articles. This came to my attention from his repeated inclusion of Scorsese (surname) in a category of Cornish surnames which I have on my watchlist, and his repeated insertion of uncited claims about "Scorsese" being a surname of English origin. On his talk page he has claimed houseofnames.com as a source, but I rather think this is not reliable. I am also rather put out by his repeatedly linking to my userpage through piped links, as can be seen on his user talkpage. I've had a quick look at some of his other edits to surname pages, and it seems like there is a pattern of uncited nonsense being added by him. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Confirmation that he received notification of this thread is in this diff where he blanks the conversation from his talkpage. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

See also Steve Boone editor (talk · contribs) who seems to be making related edits. Tag team? Socks? DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Maiorana seems to be a particular playground of theirs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

May well be socks - SPI is an option. GAB^gab 23:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emperorofthedaleks. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted Steve Boone editor's edits on Faiers (due to its use of the same source of dubious reliability) and have temporarily protected Maiorana. The SPI filed above is indeed reasonable. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a long time since I filed an SPI! DuncanHill (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocking done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet of Alec Smithson

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

---

Alec Smithson is a long-term disruptive editor indeffed here and, since 23 January 2016, globally locked on Meta. There's now a blatant sockpuppet, Prof.John Fox, active on several wiki projects, already blocked for that reason on fr.wp and pt.wp. I've asked the Meta steward who blocked Smithson, M7, to take action. Meanwhile, can the sock be indeffed here and his few edits nuked? In case anyone needs evidence, the overlap with the master is patently obvious in global edits: House of Natoli, Salvatore Garau, Carlo Bazzi, Fernando Carcupino, Francesco Filippini – all Smithson specials. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you asked a local CheckUser to look at the account? They'd probably be equipped to see if this is another sock. You could always open an WP:SPI --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The account is technically  Likely to Music10-user. I've blocked the account. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Unreal7 activity

Users Involved: Unreal7 (mainly) and In ictu oculi (briefly)
Dear administrators and other fellow Wikipedians. Before I begin, I just want to let you know that I an not trying to be a cry baby or wimp. However, I have gotten impatient with Unreal7, and would like administrator assistance. I first got involved with the user, here, when I was leaving a comment to them about an inappropriate comment about In ictu oculi in the requested move reasoning, and posted a comment on their talk page about it as well. I tried to be nice and civil with them, avoiding drama. I again, bump into Unreal7 when I see them make another inappropriate comment about IIO here. I made a comment to Unreal7 (again) here and made a comment on their talk page here. I was very patient and did not want them getting in trouble. I told them if I saw them make any inappropriate comments again, I would report them. Now, they crossed out my comment on Talk:Jack Aitchison (footballer, born 2000), with them saying Absolutely not. We never, ever use "British footballer". I am very patient, but this time they blew it. I don't know If I am just in an angry mood tonight, or if they really are making a fuss, but their inappropriate behavior at requested moves has me concerned. I have warned them, and they have not listened to me. Can an administrator deal with them and warn them? I would really appreciate it. Cheers, CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 00:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreal7 has been here long enough by now to know that modifying or editing another editor's comments, apart from specific violations or policy, is a no go zone. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreal7 did not follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks guideline, which states Comment on content, not on the contributor. Unreal7 did not do that, and made inappropriate comments about In ictu oculi. According to WP:TPO, Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Again, Unreal7 did not follow guidelines. They stroked out my comment on Talk:Jack Aitchison (footballer, born 2000) on the requested move, currently going on. They have not listened to my warnings. They need to be warned by an administrator, that's all I am saying. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 03:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record I have also encountered this user striking other people's comments on talk pages as well, for example [96], and then reinstating the change at [97] after I had reverted. I left a message about it at User talk:Unreal7#Striking another user's comment. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

. I've unstriken the comments and left a note for Unreal7. Unfortunately, this seems to be the result of an ongoing dispute at RMs between the users mentioned. This probably will require some form of dispute resolution as it appears to be escalating.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

editor complaint

Editor BilCat has repeatedly reverted properly formatted and referenced changes to several aircraft articles claiming that they are not in proper format yet they are consistent with other articles. In one case he claimed that the changes "took up too much space" and "were too much trouble to manage". Request that he be removed from any further editing of these articles.Bob80q (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of what you're referring to and links demonstrating there is consensus for these changes otherwise this sounds like an ordinary WP:Content dispute which needs to be resolved via some ordinary method of WP:Dispute resolution and that doesn't include ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW failing to notify an editor [98] that you've brought them to ANI as both the big orange box when you're editing and the big red text before you edit tell you to is never a good sign when you bring a complaint to ANI. But still I've done it for you. Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Operators section of aircraft articles already uses a style. When Bob began editing WP several years ago, he decided implement his own style, which clashes with the style that's already there. Originally, I attempted to change to the existing format, but he would just change it back. After a few failed discussions, he and his IP socks kept at it, so I just revert him now. If he just uses the style that already exists on those pages, there won't be a problem. In fact, he did do that a week or so ago, and I thanked him for it. He responded by changing it to his preferred style. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That'll teach ya to heed the old saying: "Never wake the sleeping dogs!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Best course of action...

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

---

A group of editors would like to add various accusations and disparagements to the Katie Couric BLP for a documentary film with which she was involved. It's a recent news story just a few hours old, and news sources say the outrage at Couric, a popular whipping-post for conservatives, is misdirected. What I thought was a bunch of editors now appears to be all the same person based on previous article edits in common: Mike2A-MD (talk · contribs) → Jbusch8899 (talk · contribs) → 70.161.253.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) → 70.106.236.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)...

Should I file a 3RR report (combined, they have already exceeded 3 reverts). Should I file an SPI report (they already fail the 'Duck Test' miserably)? Should I ask to have the page protected? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that this matter be put on hold temporarily, as the article has been protected for the short-term. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by IP editor

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

---

I don't really know what (if anything) should be done about this, so just raising it here. User:2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C says Wikipedia should be sued in this revision: [99]. Notifying on their talk page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm guessing an administrator will probably hand out a block for WP:NLT --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 08:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Note: I tagged them with the {{uw-nlt}} template--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 08:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Range block requested for LTA vandal

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

---

I previously requested a range block on this vandal earlier this month. After a period of inactivity, the vandal has resumed activity on a new range, 107.77.196.0/24. It's fairly easy to recognize this vandal: on animated films, the composer is usually changed to James Horner and one of these actors is added to the cast list. These are obviously hoax credits.

Here are a few disruptive IP editors I've found on this range who fit the LTA profile:

• 107.77.196.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)

Existing range blocks are listed here, along with some more info. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I've anon blocked 107.77.196.0/24 for a month. Mike V • Talk 17:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated WP:TPO violations by CFCF on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4

• CFCF
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User is committing repeated WP:TPO violations by

1. Policing the Support statement (and enforcing their view by repeated relocation away from context
2. Removing the context of Replies to the Support section that are challanging supporter votes
3. Repeating these actions over the objections of other users (See CFCF's talk page for other users objecting)

For these reasons I would like either: A ban for CFCF from touching any other editor's commentary without securing their approval first or a Topic Ban from the page (since they cannot respect Basic rules of the Wiki for the page). Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hasteur has now changed the instructions in the RfC to now include instructions as present previously — but as seen in an older version of the page [100] under the Instructions header: it told editors to not post comments in the voting section.

I did not write theses instructions, but with the fact that discussion was already going on in at least 3 places on the page I chose to move a massive comment-barrage aimed at at least 10 users to a separate section, as per the clause in WP:TPO: Off-topic. I did not in any way change the comments, but only moved them to a separate section.

Hasteur did not like this — and when I informed him of the instructions that had been placed there by another editor he chose to remove them diff with the edit comment: Organic discussions are better and this rule prevents them. OBLITERATE

Carl Fredik 💌 📧 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Only because the Oppose section which doesn't has a great discussion back and forth. In fact the whole seperated Support/Oppose is wrong as it curtails the back and forth discussion that is the hallmark of well discussed RFCs. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you do not get to close a report with an insult. And to the IP editor that undid this edit, how about you give a rationale as opposed to calling it vandalism. --Tarage (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP at Ron Bard

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

---

96.249.223.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP edit warring, deleting reliably sourced material, threatening legal action.

• Diff: Deleted critisism this is a bullshit fucking lie about my father and if my changes arent saved ill have my attorneys contact you

- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Be sure everything the IP is griping about is properly sourced. Like, what is the source for the "Bardnot" version of his name? Also, the "controversy" seems like undue weight. Once those issues are cleared up, if he strikes again, a lengthy block is in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Just checked. The Bardnot name is mentioned once in the Forbes article, and the "controversy" section seems to be solely sourced from the book by Joe Nickell. I'll leave it to more experienced wikipedians to judge the properness of the sources. Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The book by Nickell is published by University Press of Kentucky. Per WP:FRINGE, it's necessary to explain the difference between the fringe view of psychic powers, and the mainstream view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The thing that I find concerning, is that he claims to have solved a bunch of murder cases. The example in the "controversy" debunks one of them, but doesn't automatically debunk the others, whatever they were. Hence, possibly undue weight. The larger question might be whether this guy was even notable by Wikipedia standards, or whether the article is (or was) essentially a promo piece. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight on the scientific skeptical view? Really? I think we don't need to show that the criticism is founded, only that it has been made by a reliable source. Anyway, it's clear the IP wants the article to be a WP:MEMORIAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Block the IP per NLT and AFD the article for lack of notability. That'll solve both issues.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for a very clear legal threat. As to content, yes, verify the claims and edit accordingly, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Malfunction with automated rollback

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

---

See also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) § Rollback_function_has_been_changed

Were there any recent changes to how automated rollback functions? I am seeing frequent errors reporting "Rollback failed" when in fact it was successful, and it also appears that the [rollback] button displayed by Lupin's recent2.js consistently fails now as well, whereas it was working fine yesterday. While on the topic, does anyone know how to correct the issue with IPv6 addresses not rolling back properly via recent2.js? It has always errored for me regardless of which browser I use. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about using the twinkle rollback function or the rollback user right function? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cameron11598— This is regarding the rollback user privilege, not the Twinkle or otherwise scripted rollback. The behavior of this function appears to have changed for me as of today, am I the only one experiencing this issue? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: Haven't had any issues with rollback today, or at all. Peter Sam Fan 00:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: I used it this morning (01:00 pst) and didn't encounter any problems. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Although I did just get it trying to rollback 2 edits instead of just one... --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like changes of some sort have happened. You will find a larger discussion about this here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Rollback function has been changed. MarnetteD|Talk 00:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Centralized discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Rollback_function_has_been_changed. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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

William L. Uanna

User with declared conflict of interest (son of subject) is edit-warring over original research/trivia/puffery in article in William L. Uanna. See [101] [102] [103]. We've been down this road before both here at ANi and on article talk page, going back literally years, and editor is deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-land. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I've read through the edit logs and I believe I have a reasonably clear picture. This user, as noble as their intentions may be, is not relenting and insisting on imparting their own intimate knowledge. As they have good intentions but won't heed, I propose a topic ban. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconded.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Two reverts within the past hour, which may or may not put this editor in breach of 3RR. Five reverts in the past 24 hours. This editor has been granted a great deal of slack because the editors on that page uniformly admire the subject and are intrigued by this editor's claimed personal history. But he has taken that as a green light for carte blanche. Last year he was pushing some kind of conspiracy theory concerning his dad's death. now it's puffery plucked from an FOI request. It's not ending and the "pretty please abide by Wikipedia rules" phase is behind us. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. This isn't meant as a comment on the topic ban idea; please continue to offer opinions on that suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Let it be clear that my proposition of having a topic ban is what I consider to not only be the most ideal solution, but the minimum in this case. I don't want to see them indefinitely or extensively blocked, (at least not yet), but I feel as though it is prudent to prevent them from touching this topic until they have time to get a hold of themselves. They could use the restriction to focus on learning about and improving other Wikipedia content. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The block was purely for edit-warring, not for COI editing or anything like that. Given the existence of this discussion, it would be disruptive if any admin issued a short-term block on such grounds without heeding the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Would this be a good case for COIN to take up? It seems like they'd be better quipped than ANI, since COI-related POV seems to be the issue here.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, as the problem is disruptive and POV editing by an SPA, so the COI guideline, while applicable, is secondary. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Arsenal FC

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

---

Today Arsenal announced via their official Twitter that Aaron Ramsey would be changing his number to 8. I made this change on the Arsenal page and yet User:Qed237 continues to revert it, suggesting that a club's official Twitter account (a verified and official communication outlet of the organization) is unreliable. Please assist. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This might be a better/more clear tweet, idk. There are several. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't need an admin, it needs a discussion at Talk:Arsenal F.C. to gain a WP:CONSENSUS. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to add my two cents. The section for first team players uses a source which is the official source for that team (http://www.arsenal.com/first-team/players). If we were supposed to change his jersey number it would go against that source. Also the number belongs to Arteta until his contract expires (30 June 2016), and Ramsey will get his new number after Arteta is gone if they dont remove it soon like they did for Rosicky. Going for ANI over this, without attempting a proper discussion first makes this thread seem a bit uneccessary and bad faith. The editor just left a single message and did not even give me time to respond before reporting here. Qed237 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Arsenal have updated their official store as well. I have seen the way Qed237 has behaved in other edit conflicts and I am not willing to pursue this without admin assistance. This edit is unquestionably and objectively correct; to revert it is simply baffling. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This is starting to be a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG as the reporting editor reverts himself without consensus being formed.Qed237 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Or what do you think? Qed237 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

What about this requires consensus AT ALL? The official news outlets and official store of the organization in question have confirmed this change. It is objectively true and it is done. Would you require wiki consensus to prove the dang sun exists? I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here, dude, and this is precisely why an admin needs to be involved. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor now even admitted on my talkpage that they wont discuss this (diff). Qed237 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

NO DISCUSSION IS REQUIRED, IT IS AN OBJECTIVELY TRUE AND PROVEN FACT. What is your problem? Wicka wicka (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: Dont WP:SHOUT and discuss like a normal human being instead. Qed237 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I will stop shouting when you start listening. This is not a discussion, it is not a conversation, there is no debate here. I am suggesting nothing more than that we write the truth. Are you opposed to the truth? Yes or no? Wicka wicka (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How about this: why don't we delete the entire Arsenal page? Wipe it all away and rewrite it word by word, getting consensus on each letter. Would that satisfy you? Wicka wicka (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: @Qed237: please stop shouting at each other, and take this to the article talk page. It is a content dispute, not a user conduct issue, and a consensus should be formed there, between the two of you and other editors.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. The content cannot be questioned. I am curious as to why Qed237 reverted a proven, true, and referenced edit. That is why I asked the admins for help. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I am not shouting and Wicka wicka made it very clear in this edit and others that he wont discuss this. He is right, and everyone should obey him. Qed237 (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Rahul Gandhi's religion

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

---

• Hello Administrators, I was going through this page and came across few unverified claims (removed them) and few genuine claims that have been omitted citing some vague reasons. The strange thing is that his religion was claimed to be Hinduism with a "citation needed" tag, and in the past editors had reverted his religion from Roman Catholic (which was sourced from The New York Times) to Hinduism (with "citation needed" tag). What was happening?? Following is the flow of events that happened recently;

1. I was cleaning up the page and noticed that a valid religion claim was reverted.
2. So I put the claim (backed by The New York Times article) back (replacing "Hinduism" as religion with citation needed tag).
3. User:Kautilya3 reverts the edit here citing "religions need to be self-declared..."????? I am wondering, how and when did Osama bin Laden self-declare his religion? What did I miss?
4. I reverted it here with proper edit summary and asking not to engage in 3RR.
5. Then User:RegentsPark steps here in (within 2 minutes) and reverts my edit citing " blp violations". Messages exchanged on his and my talkpage.
6. Lastly, User:Kautilya3 reverts all the edits and blanks the religion field totally citing "No unsourced claims in WP:BLP articles". Well, I did provide a source, didn't I?

Are we going against the pillars of Wikipedia???? Whats happening admins; update with credible source is being reverted to make unsubstantiated claims?? I am confused. Please help. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 21:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what administrator intervention this user is asking. As far as I am concerned, I have reverted his addition of "raised as a Roman Catholic" then I noticed that the old content had "Hinduism" and deleted it as well. There is no problem here. The subject's religion seems to be private, and we should let it be private. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not "private" if its been reported in the Times. BMK (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't find anything in the NYT's archives which says that Rahul Gandhi is a Roman Catholic. His mother, Sonia Gandhi, definitely is, but that does not necessarily imply anything about her son. Unless there's a clear citation from an impeccable reliable source, the religion should be left blank. And, BTW, this is a content dispute and therefore does not belong here. Please go to dispute resolution. BMK (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Neutral point of view

To whom it may concern --

To what extent should we apply a "neutral point of view?" I believe I saw it on this page and reverted it, but a user insists on changing it back by using the word "interesting facts" rather than the original "facts," which I think is the correct way to write this. "Interesting facts" breaks the neutral point of view because other users not knowledgeable cannot agree that the facts are "interesting." I've explained this to the user on my talk page by linking WP:Neutral point of view, but the user has reverted my edit for the fourth time anyways, which breaks 3RR, and I don't want to start an edit war. The user is already harassing me on my talk page. I'm turning here for advice. What should I do?

Here is one diff.

3primetime3 (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither are correct. An unsourced list of WP:TRIVIA is not in line with the WP:MOS. Either way, the appropriate way to do this is to go to the talk page, discuss it and otherwise try one of the methods at WP:DRR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRN its primarily a content issue. The 3RR could be reported at WP:AN/3RR --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Reported to 3RR. We can continue this at the talk page, assuming the IP editor actually engages in discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Stefanomione revisited

This is a follow-up discussion to this one, which in 2012 resulted in, among other things, a ban on User:Stefanomione editing categories using HotCat or other automated tools. The reason for the restrictions was a long history of edits and creations in category space that many editors felt were inappropriate, confusing, and counterproductive.

It's over four years later now, and it's difficult to argue that much has changed. The quality of the categories created has not made a marked improvement, as far as I can tell. The majority of the user's talk page still consists of notifications that categories he has created have been nominated for deletion or other discussion. I close a fair number of discussions at WP:CFD, and I seem to be constantly closing discussions in which a variety of users say things like, "Oh no! Another Stefanomione category! When is someone going to do something about this?" His category creations eat up a tremendous amount of effort and time at CFD. He tends to defend his category creations and names at CFD, but in most cases the consensus decision goes against his arguments. This is certainly not "disruptive" when isolated cases alone are considered, but when it has been going on consistently for years in very high numbers, I feel there has to be some sort of end.

If this is not bad enough, the user has recently received a one-week block for using a sockpuppet to "vote-stack" at CFD in an apparent attempt to save some of the categories he has created: see here.

I think perhaps the time has come to reopen this issue and to see what editors with knowledge of the situation think should be done. Pinging those who participated in the previous discussion @Shawn in Montreal: @Oculi: @Axem Titanium: @Polisher of Cobwebs: @BrownHairedGirl: @Mike Selinker: @Pichpich: @Jc37: @Kbdank71: @Risker: @Begoon: @Abhijay: @MBisanz: — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for raising this. What can I say that? I strongly agree a net negative at Cfd and an enormous time-suck there. It never ends. Much the low-hanging fruit have been categorized and he's given to increasingly pointless, idiosyncratic, "works in the phillosphy of foo", "foo works", "works in foo, works of foo by disciplines, most of which need to get fixed at Cfd after exhaustive and exhausting arguments with him. I'll just choose my most recentl Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_26#Category:Works_in_the_philosophy_of_history, where we get explanations like "I think we omit words here. We think -the works present a study in- and we say -the works in-. Maybe, we should wait the opinion of some philosophers of language," which of course, he had originally written as "philosophers in language. Anyway, these are the sort of stilted, logically muddled arguments that seem to go on with him lately, ad nauseum. It's as if he alone is this higher genius that the rest of us muggles can't grasp (and indeed his banned sock presented himself as a mathematical expert, etc). I invite editors to look at his track record at CFD. He is a cancer on Wikipedia categorization. I know that sounds like a shockingly strong characterization but if me and other editors didn't expend enormous amounts of time and energy constantly killing off these outgrowths, our categorization structure would be in an even bigger mess. He is prolific, tireless, and when it matters most, clueless. He never learns. He'll never stop, unless we stop him, from forever finding new ways to split hairs over some new mangled construction of foo-works-of-this-in that that no one besides him probably gives a fuck about. As I said in a recent Cfd: this isn't categorization, this is masturbation. This is long past a way of helping readers find things. This is using our shared categorization system as his sandbox, ad infinitum. We need to permanently ban him from category creation, either with or without automated tools. We need to be rid of him, once and for all. I daresay we'd need to spend a lot of time cleaning up his messes for months to come -- and there may be socks to come -- but we'll be vastly better off. I know this comes across as sort of a howl of agony -- I feel that strongly about it. I will have more reasoned things to say later, I'm sure. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

oh, also, I wasn't sure whether to say this now or say there's later but I may as well get it out of the way: if he is allowed to continue to create categories I want to publicly state that will never again participate in any CFD related to him -- ever again. It's not a threat. It's just that if community cannot look at the totality of his work and see it for what it is, for what it has become, then I am just going to look away, and work elsewhere. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sound of Music (film) MarnetteD keeps undoing people's edits and creating frustration

Recently s/he deleted the `Titles Around the World' section complaining it was unsourced (because the material comes from within Wikipedia) and because according to him/her it had little interest for English speaking readers. Sing-Along Sound of Music theategoers would seem to disagree with that assessment.

Before that, they reverted other people's edits to this and other pages and have a history of generally engaging in frustrating people because s/he thinks that s/he's the king/queen of Wikipedia.

Do something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.157.201 (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely, since MarnetteD's edits appear to be correct (Wikipedia is not a reliable source: see WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source) and the material you added was otherwise unsourced and, yes, uninteresting - um... I mean ... not encyclopedic. BMK (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Ummm - did you see the big orange box when you began your edit here, the one that says that you must notify am editor when you start a discussion about them? Well, you don't seem to have done that, so I did it for you. BMK (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's what this IP editor had to say on their talk page about a year ago:

When I was teaching, the last time I had to tolerate challenges to my work, my children were little and I wasn't even on tenure track yet. As I have become a respected member of the community - it's like a drill instructor in the military. you do what I tell you or you're not in this man's (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard etc) very long.

And like I said - generally people leave me and my work alone even on Wikipedia. To the first-time offenders I tell them just what I wrote on the AN page. Hardheads that do it again I stomp on, and repeat offenders I report to administration - and THEN they go bother somebody else - especially since blocking entire ranges of an ISP in the big city or major university is pointless. [104]

It doesn't appear that this IP has learned anything much in the intervening months. BMK (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Then, after they were blocked for edit-warring a month later, they said this:

You may have me backed into a corner for now due to the technological limitations of this itty bitty town out in the podunks and it may be true that I can't attend to you here and now as I'd like, but once I ditch this retirement life and move back to the Peninsula where I belong - where I can hang up every twenty minutes and get a new IP - all your blocking threats will return to the status of ``ineffective and a waste of time.

Especially when I re-inherit my cadre of graduate student assistants who will like nothing better than to re-revert everybody's reversions all day long everyday - and then hang up every twenty minutes as well to get a new IP. [105]

Can you say WP:BATTLEFIELD? (And I certainly hope this "tenured professor" from a "major unverisity" isn't involved in any way with the use of the English language. "Out in the podunks" is not an idiomatic English expression. It's the kind of thing a half-educated kid trying to sound old and tough might say. In any case, what tenured professor edit wars over a list of a film's names in other countries? That's fanboy territory.) BMK (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Then there's this:

1. Major university professors who are tenure-protected do not "seek consensus" or "discuss controversial changes" with A) kids who could be their students B) people who have little to no personal knowledge about the subject at hand and C) are only interested in following a process/flowchart. I've been telling my students and trainees for 50 years: The world is full of clones. Do your best not to become one.[106]

Old dog, apparently only knows old tricks. BMK (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Then when asked why they couldn't edit collaboratively, they answered:

Because come January, there'll be more of us results-oriented reverters than there will be of you process oriented cubicle warriors.

1. The next time you have success telling your university professors, corporate executives, law enforcement or anybody else how to do their job, let me know I'll call the networks to send in Film at Eleven.

2. When's the last time you tried to "educate" or "teach" a 72 year old tenured university professor in newer and/or better ways of doing things that had any lasting effect?

3. Like I said - once my graduate-student staff and I can hang up every twenty minutes and get a new IP - see above under "huge staff doing nothing all day long but reverting everybody's reversions."

More WP:BATTLEFIELD (and, like a kid, no awareness that 11pm newscasts are not network, they're local - again, trying to sound smarter then they are), and admission they they cannot learn to do things the way Wikipedia wants them to be donw. BMK (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Still they're consistent

And then I'll reboot my internet, get a new IP address and go back to what I was doing. You guys can't block everybody on Verizon, AT&T or whoever, and if you do the reverse (block every page on Wikipedia from being edited only by people logged into the system), well, then you've just shot yourself in the foot and violated your own reason for being on the Internet. [107]

That was just this April.

So, what've we got here? WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude, inability or lack of interest in learning how to edit collegaially, constant use of the Argument from authority (How do we know he's a tenured professor? He certainly doesn't act like one. What he acts like is a headstrong stuck-up brat. Or maybe he's a dog, I dunno. Probably even dogs know that grad students don't jump out of an airplane without a parachute just because the prof says to.) Doesn't seem to have gotten a handle on signing comments, or using quotation marks (I fixed them).

I think what we've got is a WP:BOOMERANG for someone who is essentially WP:NOTHERE to do what we do. BMK (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't too riled up looking into much more of the IP's history. The IP wants "something to be done" about "it", with "it" being that MarnetteD "reverted other people's edits to this and other pages and have a history of generally engaging in frustrating people because s/he thinks that s/he's the king/queen of Wikipedia". Meh. Just close the report because it's not going to result in any action against MarnetteD. A waste of time. Doc talk 05:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, as far as MarnetteD goes, but I rather think a block of this excess baggage of an editor is called for. BMK (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not "riled", I am bemused. BMK (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)