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

---

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)

Thank you, I have written but I don't think that email address is working and the irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia-en-revdel link is dead too. Since I do not know any administrators I can ask privately I am asking any other administrator to delete the revisions (including those pertaining to it in this ANI request) in the meantime. YuHuw (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:YuHuw can check the list of admins in wp and ping as many active ones as possible because outing is serious business that should be deleted with outers banned for months, if not indefiniteFAMASFREENODE (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You just appeared 5 days ago and tried to create a Request for Admin. What's up with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't stray off topic. You can talk to FAMASFREENODE about your concerns about him on his wall not here.

FAMASFREENODE if you have any idea about pinging oversighters please ping them all. The fact that these outing incidents have not been dealt with by any oversight team now for more than half a month severely undermines the notion that there are serious admins watching this board or even the oversight inbox. the WP:OUTING policy is clear, but the supposed avenues provided are also apparently dead. YuHuw 87.69.184.128 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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.[13] 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: [14], [15], [16], [17]. 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: [18]. 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 [19], 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: [20]. 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 [21]. 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 [22]. This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title [23] and edit-warring [24], [25] 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 [26]. 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[27] 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 don't 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 [28], 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: [29] [30], [31] 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)

Francis, speaking as someone who's had talk page disputes with Softlavender more than once in the past, she was not snarking you. She was describing your behavior accurately and with no emotionally-loaded comments directed at you or your content (snarking is a subset of that class of behavior). You were snarking other editors. She called you on it.

Honestly, I don't know enough about the subject matter in dispute or the personal dynamics of the issue you and Mathsci have with each other to endorse or oppose a topic ban at this time - it's unclear you're the only offender on this topic. I think further investigation of this and related disputes is called for of your conduct and of Mathsci's. It is my impression from the testimony of the editors who came forth with separate examples of things they say you did wrong that evidence of a problem with your editing style exists. My friendly and not-snarky advice is for you to read over the testimony regarding your edits on articles other than the one Mathsci posted here about originally, try to set your anger aside, and learn from your mistakes. That was helpful to me in the past, and allowed me to shift my focus back to editing an encyclopedia.

Mathsci, with due regard for the work which other editors qualified to give a good third opinion have praised from you, and as another Wikipedia editor with moderately severe medical issues, I hope you recovered well from the illness for which you last presented in hospital. That said, I was in the hospital last December and must go back in six weeks for another procedure. It would not occur to me to expect other editors to take that into account in a discussion of my edits in wikipedia, because while I've had the occasion to learn much about specialty issues and help edit articles here for accuracy, clarity and concision, I'm not indispensable. None of us are. I invite you to read Wikipedia:No_editor_is_indispensable. The proper reaction to being kept from editing owing to illness is simply to get well and start over. loupgarous (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...she was not snarking you": I never thought she was. I also never said nor implied she was. You seem to reply to something that is nowhere apparent from the above conversation, nor from the many places it links to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Francis: "Sorry for disturbing you by replacing a deadlink by a working link. It was not my intention to disturb you with an edit to a section that had no {{in use}} template" is pure biting sarcasm. There's no other possible way to read it, in my mind, because Mathsci had not mentioned that at all in his preceding comments on the Talk page. In my opinion it's just a blatant jab at Mathsci while trying to justify your own unnecessary meddling with the article while it was being expanded and improved by the expert in the field. "The section with an {{in use}} template hasn't been edited for several hours now, so per the template instructions I'll replace it with an {{under construction}} template" is pure wikilawyering (over templates of all things!). "Re. "blanking parts of the article": I did no such thing" has already been refuted by Voceditenore above [32]. "In your above reply you missed what I said, and replied to things I didn't say" is untrue; Mathsci had replied with his clear rationale for the article's content [33]; you simply didn't accept his answer or consider it worthwhile, and instead chose to claim he didn't respond to you correctly. (And by the way in my opinion your idiosyncratic reading of WP:PRIMARY is I think simply that -- idiosyncratic, and especially odd when you propose doing the same thing that Mathsci has done on the main article to the fork articles, and especially so when you had, above on the talk page, tried to justify the changing of a large image to a minuscule image to accommodate your section blanking [34] as "a hymn that is in no way about the burial of Christ should not be illustrated by a painting about that theme" when in fact Christ lag in Todesbanden is about Christ's death and by extension burial.) "The entombement image is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove it again" is a clear violation of BRD. "The text of stanzas 1 and 4 of Luther's hymn is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove them again. They are contained in the "Christ lag in Todesbanden" article" is also a clear violation of BRD, as well as making up policies or guidelines which don't exist -- there is no stricture on material in one article being in another article as well. "The explanation of BWV 625 in the article on the hymn is inappropriate in that article, at least it is better in its place in the article on BWV 625. I'll transfer that explanation to here" likewise -- unilateral decision made without consensus and in contravention of BRD and absent any policy. "In fact it's simple: instead of having the text of the hymn in the article on the organ piece, and the explanation of the organ piece in the article on the hymn, we have the explanation of the organ piece in the article on the organ piece, and the text of the hymn in the article on the hymn" is more of the same. Note that in the discussion in this ANI thread Voceditemore has recommended three times that you reflect on the issues that are being raised here (she has been saying that in the hopes that matters will change). However if you fail to see how you've been editing uncollaboratively and uncooperatively, then her recommendation is for naught. We're all trying to raise a solution here, but the solution requires insight and understanding on your part. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...Christ lag in Todesbanden is about Christ's death and by extension burial". We shouldn't do "...by extension..." when choosing images. (Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles, policy: "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central"). "Central" to the current image (File:Entombment Art Institute Chicago Cologne.jpg) is the Good Friday related theme of Christ's burial, with Mary central in the painted group of persons mourning Christ's death – not the Easter related theme of Christ resurrecting from death. There's no Holy Virgin in the illustrated chorale, no mourning by anyone, just Christ resurrecting from death with a host of theological implications, and joyful "Halleluja!"s to celebrate the event: it is a Hymn written for Easter, not for Good Friday.

Further, there is some religous POV in play – Zwart remarked on it in general, here's how it could be seen as applying specifically to this choice of image: Lutheranism has less mourning Mary than Catholicism, as an example for that BWV 1083 could be mentioned where Bach replaces the text "At the Cross her station keeping stood the mournful Mother weeping" by that of the Miserere psalm (Old Testament, no mournful Mary weeping). Illustrating a Lutheran chorale text, if there ever was one, with a Catholic slant on a different theme is kind of an inappropriate religious POV imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break: repeated disruption on Talk:Orgelbüchlein

After having been made aware that Orgelbüchlein is an article in the course of creation—including all the sections after the lede, and in particular commentary on individual sections on each of the 46 chorale preludes, along with companion articles on WP and multiple audio/image files on commons—User:Francis Schonken has resumed his disruptive heckling on the article talk page.[35] Despite this thread, he repeatedly continues to express his personal opinion about a "religious point of view". Large preliminary sections, before the discussion of individual chorale preludes, remain in an evidently unfinished state. A glance at the two main sources, Williams (2003) and Stinson (1999), shows that quite clearly. The history ends almost in mid-sentence, there is only the briefest summary of the compositional style with no content on purpose, there is no detailed discussion of reception, etc. The lede is a summary of what will be in the article, which I am busy creating (as the tag at the top of the article indicates). The phrase "theological statement" is not contentious, except in the eyes of Francis Schonken. Many commentators refer to this aspect of Bach and his compositions. William Renwick in a commentary on BWV 614 (a section currently under construction) writes:

Bach’s art is frequently intertwined with his religious convictions. The consecration of time through music, which is part of the Christian tradition, is seen in his great cantata cycles, in Clavierubung III, and in the Orgelbuchlein. Indeed, the Orgelbuchlein, in its extensive conception though incomplete realization, contains his most detailed exposition of the theological expression of time. In many cases Bach’s compositional process was a matter of taking the text or theme of the hymn as a basis for selecting topics that could be translated into musical terms and then built into contrapuntal structures.

In Christian theology, the supreme action is the God-Man event, the incarnation. New Year, with its implications of rebirth, is a central point in the twelve-day Christmas cycle that extends from the Nativity to the Epiphany. This is the divide between old and new. In the spiritual life, this is worked out by turning away from a sinful past and toward a future promise of redemption. This concept may well be reflected in the change of tonal orientation that “Das alte Jahr” embodies. But despite our best intentions, each new year, each new beginning always ends up as a retracing of our old follies. The dividing point of the new year is in fact a mirage; we are helpless to reform without the intervention of God. In the same way, the ending on E inevitably points us back to our starting point on A.

Current musical commentary by Bach scholars like Renwick, Wolff, Williams and Stinson addresses all aspects of a composition. In the case of Orgelbüchlein this involves all sorts of things including theology and religion—hardly surprising for a collection of organ pieces devised to follow a Lutheran hymnbook and dedicated to the glory of God. This is clear in what Renwick writes above about OB and ClvUbg III, both exceptional amongst Bach's organ compositions. In an uncontentious scholarly article, which this evidently is, the lede summarises the content and no citations are needed in the lede. If Francis Schonken is too impatient to wait for that content to be added to the main body of the article, he should take the article off his watchlist until the initial stage of creation has been completed. His disruptive conduct at the moment seems designed to distract from and halt content creation. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

Per Mathsci's analysis and proposal above [36], [37]: 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.[38] Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL 25,000-byte talk-page post [39]. Always a sign of a collaborative editor. And yes, restoring it less than 6 hours ago shows the disruption has not stopped [40]. -- 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 [41][42] 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 [43]. 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 [44]. 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)
• Oppose Wikipedia is the open encyclopaedia. The first thing we tell new editors is to 'let it go'. Articles are under development by definition. How can we justify allowing a single editor to monopolize an article for years on end? As has been well documented, Mathsci has certain ideas about what the Orgelbüchlein article should look like. Others have other ideas and have raised issues on the talk page (like me). This is the second attempt to drive a dissenting editor away. Mathsci is hijacking Wikipedia to create a platform for his pet project(s) on Bach. What he is creating would make a great website, but it's not Wikipedia. I'm appalled that the question of blocking a dissenting editor for 6 months should even come up in this case. The problem clearly lies elsewhere, namely in repeated and belligerent attempts to keep well-meaning editors out. (And I'm not even going to address the condescending phrase 'drive-by editor' and raise the question how that is compatible with Wikipedia being the open encyclopaedia.) Zwart (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's not being monopolised or hijacked: it's being written, e.g. yesterday's edits. Here is Zwart's most significant edit to the article from 2012.[45] He read the following in the lede, "The Orgelbüchlein is at the same time a collection of organ music for church services, a treatise on composition, a religious statement and a pedagogical manual." He objected to "a religious statement" which he blanked as "religious POV pushing" along with most of the images. That sentence was an enlarged paraphrase of a summary in Stinson (1999, p. 25): "The Orgelbüchlein is simultaneously a compositional treatise, a collection of liturgical organ music, an organ method, and a theological statement." So just a paraphrase, not religious POV pushing. This provides context for evaluating Zwart's comments here and below. Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This comment proves my point. If you look at yesterday's edits they are all by Mathsci (except for one typo edit). And this comment inside a poll is another blatant attempt to silence dissent. Mathsci's point in asking to block Francis Schoncken is simply this: let me finish my project. But that is not the way Wikipedia works. If people feel an article has issues, that should be discussed at any time. In this case, a simple solution would be to create separate articles for the individual pieces and let Mathsci work on those articles at his leisure, so that we can start a discussion on how to improve the main page. Incidentally, Stinson's remarks on the religious nature of the Orgelbüchlein (esp. p. 34) are entirely speculative, but if we go by Stinson's authority, we should also conclude that the work has a clear pedagogical purpose (pp. 29-34), a master showing the art of organ improvisation, which is why we should focus on the music and leave the liturgical context for articles on the hymns themselves. Even if this is not immediately obvious to everyone, it is a valid point that deserves to be discussed openly. That is why this proposal, and this attempt to discredit an opponent, is so objectionable and un-Wikipedian.Zwart (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is being created. That includes for example adding anchors for all the 46 chorale preludes so that they can be wikilinked by BWV numbers. All this takes time. Like the article on Khatchaturian, most of the body of he work is created by one person; when that is in place, the article can be improved and modified by others. The same is true here, but the multimedia structure is far more complex. One of the main references Stinson (1999) is an online resource of Oxford University Press. Stinson summarises the purpose of Bach's work in one sentence on page 25. He expands on this sentence in the sequel. At the end of the chapter he writes,

The Orgelbüchlein's highest purpose, however, like that of Bach's music in general, is of a religious nature: service to God and the edification of humankind. It is summed up by the rhyming couplet—essentially a dedication—that concludes the title, and that bears repeating here: Dem höchsten Gott allein̍ zu Ehren, Dem Nechsten, draus sich zu belehren (which Hans David and Arthur Mendel poetically translated as “In Praise of the Almighty's Will, And for my Neighbor's Greater Skill”). Like other previously discussed portions, this couplet, too, may have been borrowed from an item in Bach's personal library, the Gesangbüchlein of Michael Weisse, published in 1531, which ends with the couplet: Gott allein zu lob und ehr / Und seinn auserwelten zur leer (“For the praise and honor of God alone, and for the edification of his chosen ones”). Not only do Bach and Weisse express the same message, but they also use the same phraseology and rhyme scheme (“ehr” and “lehr”). And in addition to being a hymnal, Weisse's collection, like Ammerbach's Tabulatur, also parallels the Orgelbüchlein in its use of the term “Büchlein.”

Any connection to Weisse, however, is of secondary significance compared to the couplet's apparent biblical derivation, which would seem to reveal its true meaning. The scriptural source in question is one that has always occupied an important position in Christian liturgy. Known as Christ's “Summary of the Law,” it reads: “Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37–40). Basically an extension of his more common slogan Soli Deo Gloria (“To God Alone the Glory”), Bach's little couplet proclaims that his music has both a divine and worldly purpose, in accordance with Jesus' teachings. Ultimately, then, the Orgelbüchlein may be understood as its composer's response to the New Testament.

This text is deemed to be irrelevant speculation by Zwart. Stinson is just elaborating on Bach's dedication on the title page "Dem Höchsten Gott allein̍ zu Ehren". All we do on wikipedia is summarise and paraphrase. It is a form of plagiarism. I haven't in fact used any of the above text so far, although I paraphrased three words from the beginning of Stinson's section "Purpose". Mathsci (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation. However, "The Orgelbüchlein is [...] a religious statement [...]" appears in the article without reference. Not to Bach, not to Stinson.

@Mathsci: the applicable policy is in WP:BURDEN (a part of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy): "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Yet you re-introduced the "religious statement" material twice ([46], [47]) without an appropriate reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't normally add citations in the lede as you well know. (The old article looked like this,[48] a bare list with errors in the lede and no inline citations.) Your comments here (and your mass tagging of BWV 4) sum up fairly clearly why your editing is going to be restricted. You have made a series of negative and inappropriate statements about Stinson (1999), an impeccable academic source. You've said the same about Williams (2003). You have also claimed that other contemporary sources are being ignored. If you penned a letter of complaint to Oxford University Press about bias in Stinson's book, it would go straight in the wastepaper bin (where it belongs). Both BWV 77 and BWV 4 had religious images in the infobox until I uploaded high-resolution images of the autograph manuscripts. So much for religious POV pushing (the claim you made when adding a giant POV tag at the top of Orgelbüchlein). Mathsci (talk) 12:13, 31 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)

• Support - This is a mild, common-sense measure for dealing with the problem of edit warring.Homemade Pencils (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support It's a constructive way of dealing with the issue, and gives Francis Schonken a chance to demonstrate he can refrain from the behavior several third-party editors have alluded to which is causing the problem. loupgarous (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Voceditenore's counter-proposal. It allows Francis Schonken to continue making contributions which other editors have demonstrated he can make, while drawing a bright line which he crosses at the risk of worse sanctions, such as a topic ban. No criticism implied of Gerda Arendt, I wouldn't have come up with the tightly-drawn proposal that Voceditenore did, either. This gives Francis Schonken a chance to show he's here to edit an encyclopedia. If he blows that chance, stronger sanctions are in order. loupgarous (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Hopefully this will improve matters. Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci, you need to strike this second "Support" or replace "Support" with "Comment". You've already !voted "Support" higher up in this section. Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)  Done Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Francis Schonken is not the problem, it's the way the Orgelbüchlein article is being monopolized. What's to prevent the next 'drive-by editor' from running into the same problems with Mathsci? Zwart (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• By definition, a "drive-by" editor is one who hasn't edited an article before, comes by to screw around with things, and then leaves. They don't make major additions and changes to the article such as Mathsci has done, so calling him a "drive-by editor" is inaccurate, and rather insulting given the circumstances. BMK (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Already answered above.[49] Zwart's drive-by edits to Orgelbüchlein (in 2012) involved blanking the phrase "a religious statement" from the lede, a simple paraphrase from Stinson (1999), who used the words "a theological statement". Zwart described this as religious POV pushing. Above Zwart wrote,[50] "Mathsci is hijacking Wikipedia to create a platform for his pet project(s) on Bach. What he is creating would make a great website, but it's not Wikipedia". Perhaps he's thinking of the Dutch wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, in fact I am thinking of the global Wikipedia, where everyone is invited to contribute.Zwart (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What is "the global Wikipedia"? As far as I am aware there are many separate Wikipedias, each with somewhat different rules of usage and behavior, but all under the umbrella of the WMF, and subject to its overarching regulations. There is no one "global" Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - BMK (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have much to say about the issue or proposals, but a comment for both Mathsci and Francis Schonken: You should try to be extra friendly to and patient with each other, even when you disagree with each other. I think that will make you both happier with the experience of working on the articles, and with the resulting articles themselves. Goldenshimmer (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, as requested in your mail, I won't ping again unless required by policy. Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, btw, feel free to ping me though; I don't generally mind. Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mathsci: Please remember to assume good faith and be civil. Thanks. Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. What I do is connecting several articles (on Bach, his compositions, the Lutheran chorales he used for these, etc.) Once and awhile one encounters WP:Walled gardens (church cantatas, organ preludes, remote passions). An example: extracting a section of a "remote passion" article to a separate article. Most of the time such WP:SPLIT, WP:MERGE, etc. operations are understood for what they are (application of Wikipedia:Article size, WP:PRIMARY, WP:Image policy, or whatever is applicable). Here's where I sometimes go wrong: I sometimes forget that the Walled garden gardeners are sometimes scarcely aware of these underlying policies and guidelines (so I should take more time to explain), follow their own set of guidelines (which sometimes may be based in guidance I'm less aware of), etc. So the "...extra friendly to and patient with each other" is probably something I needed to hear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem @Francis Schonken:. I do understand that Wikipedia (as with life in general) can often be frustrating, so I can certainly sympathise :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually like your image of the Bach cantatas as a walled garden, - it's walled for protection. Many gardeners planted, many (partly others) fertilized, pruned etc. You are invited to join the crew (see above): there's a bell at the door of the wall called article talk. Jumping the wall and changing the layout of flowerbeds to confirm with "policies and guidelines" is not good for the plants, - when the layout is "wrong" it can be changed the next season. - On top of the cantata mentioned above, I plan to improve Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161, to FA (first performance likely 1716), - you are invited to take part from the beginning. Please feel free to add a section about publication, - you know a lot about such things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Support – Voceditenore's suggestion for dealing with the problem is measured, non-punitive and practical. Tim riley talk 15:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

William L. Uanna

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

---

User with declared conflict of interest (son of subject) is edit-warring over original research/trivia/puffery in article in William L. Uanna. See [53] [54] [55]. 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)

I posted some comments on the earlier ANI thread. I think you guys are being too bitey. I oppose the topic ban for now. We haven't engaged CIC7 all that constructively earlier or now, so we still have room to do so. COIN seems like overkill. Figureofnine also is edit warring in my opinion, reverting 3x in less than a day[56][57][58] and seems to be wp:owning the article to some extent over its history. Figureofnine, could you ease up a bit? CIC7 seems to have some good resources to bring to the article, and we should accomodate him to the extent we can, working with him to fix issues with his contributions that are incompatible with our approach to content. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me. "Bitey"? You've got to be kidding. CIC7 has been editing Wikipedia as long as I have. He has been editing Wikipedia for six years. His sole and entire focus has been to edit the article on the man he says his father (I believe him, though it is not verifiable), which in the main is the addition of original research, conspiracy theories, and, most recently, material that is both original research and outright puffery. He knows the rules, he doesn't give a damn and never has. He has been treated with the utmost courtesy and knows perfectly well what WP:OR is because it has been pointed out to him multiple times. In the most recent situation I raised the issue on the talk page and he ignored it. The other editors on that page are not trying to add negative content; on the contrary, we are all interested in the Manhattan Project and rather admire Uanna and have worked to build it up to GA status. He has been given extra-gentle consideration because of his claimed family connection but enough is enough.

I favor a topic ban for now but only as it applies to the article itself, not to the article talk page. It's his behavior in the article proper that is objectionable. Lastly I agree with the IP that there is an WP:OWN situation. CIC7 created the article and has dominated the editing of it. The last two of his five reverts yesterday were reinstatement of unsourced trivia removed by another editor[59][60]] including "One piece of advice his mother gave his new bride Bonnie shortly after they were married in 1948 was 'Keep him out of the sun, he turns black.' " I think that after six years this editor is aware that such material is not acceptable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it's late here and I can't stay long right now, but I'd be interested in seeing some diffs of CIC7 being treated with the utmost courtesy, especially by yourself. Hawkeye7 made some constructive suggestions on CIC7's user talk page, and Jytdog left a note about COI that looked like copypasta but was at least polite. But the remarks I've seen directed to him from you looked at best pretty brusque. He has contributed a lot of content to the article, some parts of which had problems and got reverted, but other parts of which are perfectly good and are in the article. So the article has benefited from his participation, which speaks in his favor. Yes he's been around for a number of years without yet having gotten the hang of editing neutrally, but he has a total of 180 edits which is definitely still in the newbie phase. So I think this can be handled more gracefully than what's been going on here on ANI so far. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We can handle it "gracefully" by invoking WP:COI, enforcing it, and keeping him off the article and on the talk page. Simple, despite your efforts to complicate it. Done here. Over and out. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Favor site ban. Clearly here to rectify the great wrong that was done to his father at some point in the past, including murder (according to some mumbo jumbo posted on his talk page). The problem with a topic ban is that he'll go back to working his magic at John F. Kennedy or John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Editor is refreshingly free of anything resembling clue, as evidenced by his appealing a ban on editing the article that I don't believe has been imposed. Yes you can make nice with him and drop him love notes and he'll continue to keep on keeping on. Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand the problem with the first Kennedy diff above (I didn't check the second one). It looks like it restored some reasonable content about a well documented issue at the time (whether Kennedy's Catholicism would divide his loyalty between the Church and the US). It mentioned a speech that Kennedy intended to give at the Dallas Trade Mart, and quoted from a civil rights announcement. Those could have used citations--is that the issue? It took about 2 seconds to verify each with web searches[61][62] so I don't see it as a basis for banning.

  Does Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) have anything to say about this? Hawkeye7 has made substantial contributions to the Uanna article so I'd assign more weight to their view than to the others in figuring out what to do about this. Figureofnine has made a number of edits to the Uanna article, but they're all reversions, tagging, and a few minor copyedits as far as I can tell (if I missed something, I'd appreciate diffs). Coretheapple has made around 7k edits in article space to over 2000 articles, but almost all of those edits are reverts, and zero of the edits are to the Uanna article. So this seems emblematic of the bureaucracy that's given Wikipedia a bad name in recent years.

  If CIC7 is causing hardship to other people writing the article, I'd like to hear that from the writers themselves, i.e. those who have added substantial informative text rather than only reverting or rearranging, before going forward with a ban. CIC7's editing is far from perfect, but he has obviously contributed more value to the article than Figureofnine or Coretheapple, so if we're going to ban anyone we might be better off choosing the latter two. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Since your own contribs are hidden by your editing logged out, it's hard for me to determine the extent to which you may have edited this article yourself, apart from this[63] less than constructive edit restoring crap to the article, and with an inaccurate edit summary as the ANI was two years ago. What is the user name that you utilize when not trolling the drama boards? Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As part of my push to get the Manhattan Project, I made edits to the William L. Uanna to shepherd it through the GA process. CIC7 has made twice as many changes as I have, but between us, we have contributed 95% of the text of the article. I think the article is in pretty good shape. CIC7 has been a good collaborator, and has always responded helpfully and collaboratively to my requests, mainly for sources to back up claims in the article. I have had hassles with athletes editing their own articles, but not from CIC7. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, readers have a right to expect that articles not be written in collaboration with the subject or their offspring; I note that the original GA nom failed because of OR and also that this editor has edit-warred to keep OR and puffery in the article, which you made no effort to remove, over an extended period of time this week. I see that he was blocked for that. I note too also that his efforts to place a reference to his father being murdered, sourced to a fictional film and without a shred of evidence beyond that, also did not bother you one bit.[64]

I just looked at the sourcing of that article. Significant parts of the article are sourced to primary source documentation uploaded to Commons by "CIC777" which I assume is the same as this editor. The "sources to back up his claims" appears to be material he personally obtained and "published" on Commons. Looks like WP:PRIMARY has been flushed down the toilet in this article alongside WP:COI. I could not disagree more that an article relying for extensive text on self-published documentation, provided by a COI editor, is in "pretty good shape." The article reads like a memorial to this rather marginal figure, and given that his son is a principal author I am not surprised. Coretheapple (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The article passed GA, so that's evidence that other editors do consider it to be in good shape. You sound like you want to eviscerate it anyway. Maybe you should find another hobby. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it means that one editor considers it in good shape. That is the weakness in the GA process. Why do you continually make false statements? Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, thanks for the post. I'm satisfied from it that CIC7 doesn't need a ban. I also see that you've been working with him on his talk page, helping him navigate Wikipedia's editing machinations etc. Are you ok with continuing to do that? If yes, that helps too.

Regarding the movie end credit, I posted in the previous ANI (yeah, August 2014 rather than last year, big whoop) why I supported using it. There's no overpowering policy basis for either including or excluding it being mandatory, so it's a matter of editorial judgment, on which reasonable people can disagree. I myself see it as an informative contribution, good to include per NPOV (with reduced WEIGHT compared to the official explanation of Uanna's death), communicating that there's an alternative claim out there that has gotten some traction. As a reader, I'm skeptical of the claim, but I appreciate being informed of its existence.

I can understand someone else weighing the subtleties differently and deciding "nah", but the wikilawyering and confrontation that I see from Figureofnine (and now CTA) are what I described earlier as WP:OWN. In any case, CTA removed it again calling it "garbage".[65] I think that's excessive and shows a lack of objectivity on CTA's part.

CTA's whole approach to this comes across as monstrously belligerent to me. I'd support administrative intervention against him if he doesn't stop that. WP:CIVIL and collegiality are supposed to still be a thing. I'll be away from editing for the next few days but will see if I can find out whether Thomas and Morgan-Witt's book (the one the movie is based on) says anything about William Uanna's eventual fate.

FWIW, I don't think I edited the article before. I supported including the movie credit but someone else (probably CIC7) put it in. Bye for now. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OWN? The subject's son created the article and [66] is responsible for four out of ten edits to the article on his dad. Hawkeye7 has another 23% of edits. Figureofnine 10%. No other editors on the page to speak of. I've added two tags and made one edit. Your continual false statements are disruptive, so please stop. Yes, this article passed GA despite violating site policies on sourcing. If I had a nickel for every time that happened I could probably start my own Wikipedia. This article should have been speedily failed, since the majority of footnotes go to documents uploaded to Commons, and I've commenced a community reassessment. Mr. 50, judging from how you have tenaciously disrupted a simple COI situation with false statements, personal attacks and trolling I assume that the user name you're not disclosing has quite the colorful history. Coretheapple (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of User:CIC7

I think it's time to impose a topic ban on CIC7 (talk · contribs).

I have no previous involvement in this, but it is clear from the evidence set out above that:

• CIC7 has a WP:COI wrt to the article William L. Uanna [67]
• CIC7 is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, by publishing original research in relation to his father [68]
• CIC7 has been warned repeatedly about WP:NOR, WP:COI and other relevant policies, by editors who have explained the constraints and offered suggestions on how to publish the information in ways that could be used in Wikipedia
• This was the subject of an ANI discussion in August 2014: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#William_L._Uanna
• Many editors appreciate CIC7's intesrest in the topic and have tried to help CIC7 to contribute constructively
• Despite these long-standing warnings, CIC7 has been edit-warring in May 2016 to insert unsourced original research into the article wrt which he has a COI: [69], [70], [71]

So I propose the following: CIC7 is indefinitely topic-banned from editing the article William L. Uanna and related topics, narrowly construed. CIC7 is encouraged to use the talk pages of those articles, and other discussion pages, to proposed changes which are based on reliable sources.

I hope that this will prevent CIC7 from continuing to edit in breach of policy, but will encourage CIC7 to help other editors to improve and expand the article(s) relating to the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WithdrawnPer my comments below[72] in response to Jytdog, I am withdrawing my proposal for a topic ban, on the understanding that this will be re-opened if CIC7 doesn't uphold the assurances[73][74] which zie has given to Jytdog.

• Support provided it's clearly understood that edits like this are encompassed by the topic ban. Not sure it is, as drafted. Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Coretheapple: my intention was that edits like that should be clearly covered by the ban, because if we only ban from the one article then content about William L. Uanna could be splatted across a whole range of articles. What I didn't want to do was to ban CIC7 from for example editing an article about somewhere his father lived to add content unrelated to his father. I hope that it is clear enough that adding such material such as that in your example to any another article would fall within the narrow construction of "related", but I am open to any suggestions for alternative wording to make things clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Understood. Perhaps "narrowly construed" can go. I'm just looking ahead to the future, as compliance is unlikely. This editor seems intent on his quest, which is why I advocated a site ban. In my experience such editors can be a terrible drain on the project, and you see aspects of that in the mucked-up discussion above and in the COI editor's comments below. I've commenced a community reassessment of the unwarranted GA status of this article, but it really needs to be gutted and properly sourced. I see no constructive contributions by the COI editor on the talk page, which he has used mainly to push his OR, and no effort to provide reliable secondary sources. A Google Books search shows at least two books discussing Uanna. Neither is even mentioned in the article, presumably because one of them, in a footnote, dismisses his son's conspiracy theory. This is the book, plenty of stuff on Uanna[75], published by the Naval Institute Press, some quite complimentary, but not a word on it in the article but plenty of tangential OR uploaded to Commons by the COI editor. That is what happens when editors rely upon COI editors for sourcing, and it belies Hawkeye7's comments as to what great shape the article is in and what a wonderful contributor the COI editor has been. Yes, wonderful if you ignore a COI's edidtor's agenda and are indifferent to the quality of an article's sources. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I think it is completely unfair to accuse me of not using a book that was not even published at the time I upgraded the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Huh?
I didn't mention you, either directly or indirectly, let alone accuse you of anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

He was responding to me. Hawkeye7, you have acknowledged that there are multiple books, some quite old, dealing with his notable service on the Manhattan Project, none of which are utilized in the article due to overreliance on a COI editor with a fringe agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to request some outside arbitration here. I have acknowledged my COI. But many of the things that were taken out of William L. Uanna are verifiable through newspaper articles or FOI documents. They are not just my memories or those of my relatives. CIC7 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think what I want is mediation not arbitration. CIC7 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

CIC7, you can request dispute resolution on this page. Bishonen | talk 02:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

• Support. Wikipedia is not a Web publisher. CIC7 needs to look into one of the inexpensive services offered by Google. 2600:1017:B40F:A478:44:8E3B:210:559D (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now First, let me say that I agree that CIC7's behavior has been unacceptable and that he has been unresponsive to templates and requests in the past. My sense is that his attention has now been focused by this thread and the TBAN proposal, and by his 24 hour edit warring block.

Sometimes people do respond when you get their attention. I opened a discussion with him about COI, and he has acknowledged his COI, and he has promised to stop directly editing the article and instead propose changes on the Talk page. I've also given him advice about how to participate on the Talk page.

I recommend that this be closed, and if CIC7 turns out to be unrelenting/disruptive on the Talk page or goes back to directly editing the article, that this be re-opened and a series of escalating blocks be given. But let him try now that he is talking and appears to have the beginnings of an understanding of what it means to be a Wikipedia editor. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: congrats on engaging CIC7 in dialogue, and in the progress you have made, especially in getting a commitment[76] from CIC7 to stop editing the article, and start proposing changes on the talk page.
It's also clear from that discussion that CIC7 has a very limited understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so it's great that you have helped out with a very comprehensive set of explanations. I see that CIC7 has also agreed to follow those guidelines[77].
Given all that progress, I agree that a topic ban is inappropriate at this stage ... so I will withdraw my TBAN proposal, on the understanding that this will be re-opened if CIC7's assurances are not upheld. --User:BrownHairedGirl, 09:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is a workable outcome. However, I think that input would be desirable from @Figureofnine:, who commenced this discussion, has had to bear the brunt of this particular editor, and was forced out of this discussion by a particularly aggressive IP troll. Coretheapple (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

However, I'm not seeing any recent contributions by FON so it may be pointless to keep this open. Coretheapple (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: forgot to ping you. Adding pings doesn't work. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Coretheapple. I had actually spotted your comment, but it was kind of you to add the ping just in case.

It would be nice to hear from Figureofnine before this discussion closes, but I don't think any further comment would make much difference now. FON made a good case above, but since nobody else is now supporting a topic ban of CIC7 at this stage, I doubt that further comment from FON would alter the outcome.

AFAICS, there is consensus at this point to give CIC7 some WP:ROPE, and let CIC7 decide how to use it. I can see that CIC7 has a lot of learning to do wrt to en.wp policies and principles, but I hope that there will be a serious effort to learn and act on them. If CIC7 ends up back here again, I reckon that sanctions would happen quite quickly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It does seem unfortunate that these kinds of discussions are even necessary at all, since our guideline is quite clear that COI editors are not supposed to be editing the article, much less edit-warring over it, much less editing warring over puffery and OR. I think this article seems to suffer in general from a lack of eyes on the content, which is how we got to this point. P.S. am signing your comment above, BrownHairedGirl, hope you don't mind. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: if all editors consistently upheld Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then there probably would be no need for ANI or any of the other dramaboards. But we live in an imperfect world, so these things happen, and we have ways of dealing with them.

I hope that CIC7 is able to follow through on the assurances given here, and that the discussion will have drawn more eyes to the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, WP:COI, WLP on Alex Tan

Reference the edit history of Alex Tan. Previously an IP editor was adding unsourced writeups and removing sourced writeups. When I left a note to the IP's page about WP:CITE and WP:BLP, a new account Sgwatcher (talk · contribs) was created which continued the same behavior. When I put forth that we need to be able to verify whatever changes had been made on the page need to be verified, SGWatcher self-outed himself as the subject of the article. Even assuming its really him, I have repeatedly mentioned the need for verified sources but editor seems to be in a case of WP:IDHT.

Editor seems unwilling to take any feedback. I guess this edit reply from him sums up his thoughts on the matter.

The resolution is simple: Remove the page or we do this forever :)[78]

More eyes on this is appreciated. Thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And now, add personal attacks to the list. [79] Zhanzhao (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I've issued a 24-hour block for edit warring to insert completely unsourced material even while this report is open. Sgwatcher had previously blanked this section twice, so they certainly know about it. I've said I'll unblock for them to take part in this discussion providing they agree not to edit Alex Tan or related articles until these concerns here are resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

(I should add that I have not looked at the other issues and will not be able to, and this is just an action to stop the immediate ongoing warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC))

• Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs) is trying to help at the editor's talk page. Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) is also trying to help (despite being the one suffering the personal attacks - a nice way to respond, Zhanzhao, for which you have my thanks). The 24 hour block seems unlikely to be lifted with Sgwatcher apparently still adamant that they will not follow Wikipedia's policies (though he's still in a pretty angry mood right now - hopefully that will improve). I'm watching the progress at both Alex Tan and at User talk:Sgwatcher and will take any further admin action that might be needed (unless someone else gets there first). So, I think we've done all that is needed for now and this section can probably be closed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

He's threatening to sock now. Might want to keep this open just in case.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"We do this forever"... why does this strike me as familiar? Oh, because 66.102.157.201 (the subject in the ANI thread right above this one) said the exact same thing (proof: 1, 2) and within 24 hours of one another... Thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

That's actually not the full quote. "Remove the page or we do this forever" is the quote that is repeated. Interesting, but the IP clearly cut-and-pasted the "NOTHERE, BATTLEFIELD, INDISCRIMINATE, NOTGETTINGIT, NPA" thing from BMK, so the other phrase seems less suspicious to me. Doc talk 07:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, Doc9871. Thanks for the input :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case, just block Sgwatcher per WP:DUCK once 66's ban goes through, since there's no chance of it not passing at this point.142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

They're not the same person. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, oh. Maybe he really does have a phalanx of grad students. EEng 18:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hehe. Worldwide too... US, Singapore, Australia! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot is malfunctioning

When I clear the sandbox, a bot just insert a secound one, Any comments on that? KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Odd... I've removed the second one and let the bot operator know about this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Inserts a second what now? I'm confused. Do you have a diff? I'm on mobile at the moment, but I'll be happy to take a look if I can... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: OP was talking about this edit from the bot. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in a xbox one editing here via Microsoft Edge where I cant copy paste diffs. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Made it over the pass! Still gonna be on mobile for awhile (excuse my delayed slow poke replies). Sounds awful, CitiesGamer66. Lol :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Both edits were within the same minute. Could it have been an edit conflict where the bot saw the header needed replaced and added it, and CG66 did it roughly the same time? —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it did not cause edit conflict for me. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting... I saw something similar happen back in March, except it was on Wikipedia talk:Sandbox and happened after cyberbot I had reinserted the sandbox header template. CabbagePotato (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I suspect it was simply a coincidence. One of the functions of Lowercase sigmabot is to replace the sandbox header when it is removed and both KGirlTrucker87 and Lowercase sigmabot did that at almost the same moment. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Years ago, people would contact the bot operator or not even complain at all when a non-harmful infrequent error on a non-critical page that regularly receives much worse edits was made, instead of immediately reporting to ANI. Times seem to have changed.

The sandbot does not keep logs, as its task is trivial and only limited to a set of relatively unimportant pages. So my best guess would be that for some unknown reason the bot failed to retrieve the list of templates on the sandbox from the API for some reason or another. In situations such as these, it is designed to add the sandbox header anyway, as it has.

→Σσς. (Sigma) 00:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hello, User:Bbb23 has recently blocked the accounts of User:Ranyaa.a, User:Sshalhout, User:Nrmeen404, User:Hadeel1005, and User:Alaimusleh as sockpuppets of User:Ranyaa.a. They are in fact all collaborating for a classroom assignment for a microbiology course. I've notified User:Bbb23 on his/her talkpage, but am reposting here in due to the time sensitivity of the issue. Can someone please restore their accounts so they can resume? Best Regards, --Fjmustak (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but this hardly is an appropriate venue for class assignments. Could you change the curriculum so that it's not presented through Wikipedia? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Another administrator may not unblock these accounts. Only I or another CheckUser is permitted to do so. Fjmustak is not a course instructor. Nor are they an experienced editor based on the account's stats (I don't know what they did before creating an account). There was no transparency to this "classroom assignment". There were no posts on the various user pages indicating that they were participating in an exercise, the scope of that exercise, or the duration of the exercise. I still don't know any of these things. Meanwhile, they have wasted valuable community resources needlessly and been disruptive, even if not intentionally, in doing so. I see no basis for unblocking the accounts at this point, although I welcome additional input on the issue. Classroom exercises, course instruction, etc., is a procedural quagmire that often presents problems at SPI when those procedures aren't followed, and that's even when the activity is more legitimate than it is here. Speaking of procedure, Fjmustak failed to notify me of this thread as required. I'm here because I did receive the ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Bbb23. I did send you a message on your talk page. I was not sure what the best venue for reversing an indefinite block was (If moving this discussion back to your talk page is preferable, please let me know), and really hope this can be resolved before the end of the semester (next week). In any case, these students may have added large blocks of content that was reverted, but they are certainly not the same person, and whatever their transgression is, sockpuppetry is not one. I had asked them to rewrite their content so that it is not such blatant copyright violation. I apologize for taking up your time, and certainly hope they can resume their assignment as soon as possible. Best regards --Fjmustak (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The message you left on Bb's talk page was insufficient. You merely asked him the same question as what you are asking others here. You are required to tell him you are talking about him: this was not done. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup, you left a message on my Talk page but mentioned nothing about ANI. How many students are there? What's your involvement? Are some of them using the same computer? What is the purpose of this assignment?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Again User:Bbb23, I apologize for not following procedure on notifying you about this ANI. I am the coordinator for the Wikipedia Education Program in Palestine (meta:User:Fjmustak. Currently, Birzeit University is the only university participating. This is the second semester in the program. The language of instruction in sciences is English, but the mother tongue of most students is Arabic. This semester there are four sections of a Microbiology course participating (about 70 students). Their assignment is to write a Wikipedia article about a microbiology topic (selected by their two professors). Most of the students edited in Arabic, while ten chose to write in English, including the five editing the article on minimum inhibitory concentration. Due to the main language being Arabic, the course page (which unfortunately does not support multi-project courses) is hosted on the Arabic Wikipedia (here), where the students are listed. The five students working on the MIC article that were blocked may have very well worked on the same computer, or at the very least in the same computer lab. I had encouraged them to each add their own contributions so that 1) they can learn how to edit Wikipedia, and 2) so that they could get credit for their work. For the upcoming semesters, I will make sure that students editing in the English Wikipedia clearly mark their user pages, and will warn them specifically about sockpuppetry. I hope I answered your questions. Regards, --Fjmustak (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fjmustak: Thanks, much more helpful information. I have one more question. Then I have a set of conditions for you and the students (through you) to agree to, and I should be able to unblock. Of the six accounts I blocked, I'm assuming that Alaimusleh (talk · contribs · count) and Alaimusleh95 (talk · contribs · count) are truly the same person. Is that correct? If so, which one should be unblocked because there's no sense in a student having two. The conditions. Before the students do any more substantive editing at en-wiki, they have to post messages on their user pages about what they're doing and how long it will last and mention you as the coordinator. You also have to post a message on your user page that you are the coordinator, what's going on, the duration of the assignment, and the accounts of the five students. If we can agree on all that, I will let them back loose on Wikipedia. Hopefully, you or someone else will monitor their edits to make sure any disruption is transient and corrected quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Bbb23:. Alaimusleh (talk · contribs · count) is in fact the same as Alaimusleh95 (talk · contribs · count) (no idea why she created two, I will also make sure to remind them not to do that)... Alaimusleh is the one that should be unblocked. As for the conditions, I'm on it. I'll add info to my userpage about the course (I hope the explanation I gave here is sufficient). I will also ask all the students editing in English to add information to their user pages before making any more edits. Cheers --Fjmustak (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. The comments below, particularly the one by BrownHairedGirl, would add more procedural hurdles for you. I'm not condoning your not doing those things, but from my limited point of view as a checker and blocker of socks, I just need enough transparency so I know what's going on without having to dig. Therefore, I'm going to unblock as I promised, but you may wish to think about the procedural requirements for the future, and I can't promise that action won't be taken against you if you fail to do so. You appear to be a very reasonable and civil person, which I personally value. Your English is better than some native speakers I know. Best of luck to you, and let me know if you need more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Umm, Bbb23, I did not intend to add procedural hurdles in the path of an unblock, and am surprised that my comments appeared that way. I just wanted to point to the existing guidance written about this type of activity, because it provides helpful explanations of the pitfalls and did not appear to have been linked so far.
I am glad that you feel able to unblock Fjmustak's students, since it does seem that everyone has acted in good faith and Fjmustak has been very civil and straightforward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm glad we're all in agreement, and the link is useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 and BrownHairedGirl, Thank you both (and everyone else involved) for turning this misunderstanding into a learning experience, while keeping the discourse civil. Procedures are important, and I've actually started to put together a handbook for next semester, and will definitely incorporate more of the suggestions in BrownHairedGirl's link. I think the main source of misunderstanding is that the course page is in Arabic, and it is much easier to manage students in a "small" Wikipedia, than in the English Wikipedia where procedures do matter. Thanks again. --Fjmustak (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• That was a good block, BBB. User:Nil Einne posted at WP:ED incidents page here to help this get worked out; i had gone to do the same thing. Also pinging User:Ian (Wiki Ed) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Fjmustak: I suggest reading Wikipedia:Student assignments, if you have not already done so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Such projects should be done as a draft, not in article mainspace. Just my opinion. Jeh (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that 100% percent. Or in the instructor's sandbox. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. I saw this via the post on ENB; I really don't have much to add. It got me thinking about course pages - while there wasn't one on en, I noticed that there appears to have been one on ar. I wonder whether there might be some way to more easily provide cross-wiki notifications about courses. (Double signing since I've often posted here with my main account} Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ian (Wiki Ed), WMF is working on internationalizing the Wiki Ed dashboard, which I cannot wait to use, since it's supposed to allow cross-project assignments. Fingers crossed. --Fjmustak (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Fjmustak - Yes, I know; I was wondering if this is something that is part of the plan for the Dashboard. (I need to find out.) Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:NYBCchimps

Can someone take a look at their edits? 2600:1008:B014:26F3:798B:E3D9:A7F4:A661 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Give us a hint.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Can't figure out how to notify them. 2600:1008:B014:26F3:798B:E3D9:A7F4:A661 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I've done the notification, I believe the IP is suggesting that there's some advocacy reg the chimpanzees used for research by the New York Blood Center. —SpacemanSpiff 14:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

And since the OP here has seemingly not edited anything that NYBCchimps (talk · contribs) has worked on, it's reasonable to suppose he logged out to avoid scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Why would she log out to report her own account? I mean it's possible but... seems odd. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Logging out to report another account, and not wanting to be identified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

BaseballBugs frequently casts aspersions on IP editors It's problematic behaviour that goes against one of the 5 pillars and some policies, but despite repeated advice (sometimes at ANI) thye've never taken the hint to just leave IP editors alone. DanBCDanBC (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your claim is untrue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. It would certainly be more helpful to the AN/I process if you could refrain from making off-the-cuff bad faith comments with no evidence.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

If the given IP spoke for himself instead of you attempting to speak for him, I would have more faith in the given IP. As it stands currently, I don't find either you or the given IP to be sincere or trustworthy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. DanBCDanBC's complaint remains untrue. But because he made that complaint, it's interesting to note on his user page that he says he "used to IP edit from 82.132.192.0/18. I'm currently using an account because those IPs are rangeblocked. I didn't do any of the vandalism that caused that IP range to be blocked." OK, fine. But some proof of that user page assertion would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the unnecessary digression above, nor my apparent un-trustworthiness and insincerity, User:NYBCchimps does appear to be a single-purpose account with a rather specific point-of-view they would like inserted in a number of related articles. That being said, they have not edited since other editors explained on their talk page why the edits were being reverted. I don't think further action is warranted unless the edit-warring flares up again.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Spyker120- Compromised account?

On my talk page, Spyker120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claimed that "his little brother" made some bad edits to various spelling bee pages. Feinoha ^Talk 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting that the same acount (whichever editor!) made similar edits last June. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Probably shouldn't be considered "compromised" in the "block the account because we can't know who's using it" sense because the claim just isn't credible for one. And even if true there's no indication that it's compromised versus just left logged in on a family-use computer. If the account's making inappropriate edits and the editor refuses to address the issue, then we probably have recourse on that basis. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BROTHER... if the behavior continues, block is warranted. User is responsible for actions taken on account, even if by a sibling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Article editor marks all edits minor and ignores talk

User:Article editor ignores all the many complaints on his talk page, including several requests to stop marking all his edits "minor". Can some admin do something to coerce here? See User talk:Article editor#Edits_marked "minor". Dicklyon (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Note The editor has been doing this since 2006. 3,562 of his 3,613 are supposedly 'minor.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

And his talk page has over 100 sections, mostly complaints that he has ignored. Dicklyon (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see what the outcome of this is. Help:Minor edit stresses that edits shouldn't be marked minor indiscriminately and there's a user warning {{uw-minor}} regarding inappropriate minor edits, but is there any recourse beyond that? This isn't the first editor I've seen that marks all their edits as minor. AFAIK, there's no longer a setting on the English Wikipedia to automatically mark all edits minor, so these editors must be checking the box manually despite being told not to. clpo13_(talk) 20:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Tangentially related to this is Template:Bug, which removed the "mark all edits as minor by default" preference wayyyyyy back in 2010. It looks like Article editor is using a script to cause the same effect (User:Article editor/vector.js). While I'm not aware of a clear policy forbidding this, it seems clear that if this is considered abusive an admin may edit AE's vector.js to remove the script and inform him that if he re-adds it, he may be sanctioned. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue of non-communication is perhaps more troubling. Irondome (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixing his .js file seems like a good thing to start with. It's unlikely that he knows or cares about that, since he hasn't touched it since 2011. Just do it. Communication issues can be dealt with later if at all. Dicklyon (talk)

• I suggest a 24-hour block to call their attention to the fact that communication with other editors is not optional in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that the editor should be blocked until they agree to mark only indisputably minor edits as "minor", and blocked again if they falsely mark any future edit that way. This is a disruptive form of evasion of scrutiny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• I removed the script and left a note to not restore the script due to it being abused. Not sure what authority I have to do so, to be honest, but I'm claiming it based on this discussion and WP:IAR, and the desire to not have to block him. Let's see what happens next. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • • • Great alternative, Dennis Brown. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Marking all edits as minor falls under 'disruptive editing' as it effectively removes the edits from oversight (as a lot of people have hide minor edits checked). Persistant refusal to stop doing so in the past has resulted in blocks *after* the situation has been explained to the editor and they keep doing it. In this case since the user is not actually communicating at all, you might need to end up blocking just to get their attention. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • No admin has done the obvious yet, which indicates either (1) they don't care and/or (2) they're all on holiday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Bugs, there's also possibility #3: that admins are watching, are not on holiday, and do care, and have already warned AE to engage with ANI[80] ... but that these admins note that Article editor (talk · contribs) has not edited since that warning post was made, and is prepared to give that editor a chance to demonstrate good intent before using a trigger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It's hard to believe this is the first time in 10 years that he's been warned to not mark all his edits as "minor". As for not editing since the most recent warning, maybe he's on holiday, this being Memorial Day weekend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Its also a Bank holiday weekend in the UK so 3 day weekend. Lots of people go away/make plans. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
            • The thing is that this is not a drive-by, it's an editor who's been here 10 years. So I must assume that the first time he edits again with a non-minor edit tagged as minor, they'll block. Either that, or come up on him from behind and issue a "stern" warning. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Still, a block isn't the first choice. I think my boldly deleting that script and leaving him the message I did is sufficient for now. And yes, I'm hopeful he will just get the hint and stop doing it. Blocks aren't universal problem solvers, as you very well know. We warn first, unless the action is so bad it requires an emergency brake. This isn't that kind of situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                • To add, I'm wondering if the bulk of others using that script are doing so properly, or if the primary reason is like the above, making it a MFD concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                  • When questioned about it recently, his response was "calm down". Not a lot of good faith in that response. The question is, how important is the matter of marking non-minor edits as minor? I don't weed minor edits in my watchlist, so to me it's of no importance. But for some, it would be. And continual refusal to abide by consensus amounts to disruption. If he's warned repeatedly but doesn't get blocked, then he has no incentive to change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                    • You do know that I deleted that script from his *.js page? That is the first time I've done that to an editor. What he does next will tell us what faith he acts in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                      • So he would have to purposely select "minor edit"? It will be interesting to see if he does that... and to see if anyone does anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                    • Is there any way to remove the "minor" flag from all of a user's past edits? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm betting that others will watch, and they will ping me if he continues, although we want to see 30 or 40 edits before acting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Good call pulling the script, Dennis. As to additional measures, I agree that removing the script is good enough for now, and wait for AE to make the next move. What would be worth checking is running a search of all editors' scripts for similar code and seeing if there are other editors misusing the minor edit flag who might need to be similarly addressed. Fortunately AE has made few enough edits that just looking over what's happened in the last year shouldn't take too long. And I'm sure someone's already doing that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that pulling the script was a good call. Nice third way move. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Who cares if he marks all of his edits as minor? Do we also block people for not using edit summaries? I'm really failing to see the harm here. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • quite a few bots ignore edits marked as minor, and quite a few people exclude them when watching articles. Marking edits as 'minor' when they are not is a tactic used to prevent scrutiny of edits (its mentioned in WP:Vandalism) and can be disruptive. The problem is you dont know until you go check. As for edit summaries - yes people have been blocked in the past (Admittedly very rarely) for not using edit summaries or using obviously deceptive ones. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    • So are there serious problems with the user's edits then? You're suggesting that marking all edits as minor could be a bad thing, but it seems to me that the only bad thing would be the contents of the edits themselves (and by that, I mean actual actions which cause damage to the encyclopedia), but no evidence is given here that that is the case. ANI really has a good track record recently; first trying to ban an editor from NPP and AFD despite remarkable accuracy ratings, and now this. I can see why they call it the dramaboard... Does nobody here have anything better to do? Ajraddatz (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Well thats rather the point, they could be but no one will know, the only way to find out would be to go and check them all. Feel free to volunteer to do that, generally everyone else would rather people did not lie about about changing content and marking it minor. Its clear what marking edits as minor is to be used for. If you use it inappropriately expect to have some pushback. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Generally in the western world, the burden of proof is on the people accusing someone of wrongdoing. And your claim that some bots and editors don't check is pretty dubious; if this guy had wide-spread patterns of disruptive editing, marking edits as minor isn't going to do anything to hide that. But by all means, continue to lynch someone for absolutely no reason because he doesn't want to follow whatever norm we have about tagging edits. Or accusing him of lying by tagging his edits? Really? In the mean time, I've remembered why this page usually isn't on my watchlist and I'm going to fix that situation. Have a good one, and good luck righting this incredible wrong here. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
          • You might want to keep in mind this editor has a history of socking and editing disruptively not linked to marking edits as minor. Or did you not actually look at their history before? Also fortunately since marking edits as minor that are not minor edits is wrong by wikipedia standards, their contribution list serves as evidence enough. But feel free to keep riding that high horse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
            • I can read a talk page. But none of that seems to have been hidden by his nefarious use of minor edits. This seems like a witch-hunt brought up by an editor with a history of sending templates and other warnings to this guy's talk page, in many cases rather than fixing the mistakes himself or attempting some sort of civil conversation. Though my distance vision might be a bit clouded from the height, as you say. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a longstanding consensus that use of the minor edit flag to mark non-minor edits as minor is disruptive. That's why we removed the preference to mark all edits as minor by default. I'm honestly presuming the whole reason that option existed in the first place was to prevent early, primitive bots from disrupting watchlists before the bot flag existed. This is a problem regardless of this editor's history, and one which Dennis Brown has probably resolved by disabling his script that simulates the old preference. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

He's now on ice indefinitely (maybe this time permanently compare with the other indef's he's received in the past) for reasons that don't even have to do with the "minor edits" issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

He's well through the thin ice now; Indef'd by Fences and windows. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This editor had repeatedly breached their 2013 unblock condition to not move articles without discussion. They made "technical requests" for capitalisation changes on a number of articles that had previous RM debates to the contrary. My block was about that narrow issue. I saw on their talk there was a AN/I about the minor edit issue but assumed (my bad) it was resolved as the script was removed. Fences&Windows 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs et al.: I should like to point out the four warnings I made over the course of the past year about abusing minor edits at User Talk:Article editor#March 2015. While it explains a lot that their vector.js was automatically marking edits as minor, I believe at this point that the user should be given a sanction against any use of minor edits in the future, and that this be part of their unblock conditions. Ibadibam (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We never know how he reacts to the removal of the script, since he's indef blocked for other reasons now. Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Unabated disruptive editing by IP jumper

• 174.29.69.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.212.34.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.208.1.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.212.48.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 174.29.1.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 174.29.184.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

There are more, but these are the most recent.

Editor is continuing unabated a pattern of disruptive editing to numerous articles, including several BLPs. The most frequent targets include, among many others, Jack Albertson (this one in particular), Idina Menzel, Irene Bedard, Evelyn Venable, Judith Barsi, Christine Cavanaugh, Miriam Margolyes, Susan Backlinie, Heather O'Rourke, Brittany Byrnes, Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers, and Suicide of Kelly Yeomans. Patterns include:

• Addition of "Cause of death ... [causing/leading to] death" to infobox: 1, 2, 3
• Addition of "Cremated" to "Resting place" in infobox: 1, 2, 3
• Changing parents having children to "she bore him": 1, 2, 3
• Conversely, addition of "born ... to [his/her] expecting parents": 1, 2, 3
• Addition of otherwise unencyclopedic days of the week: 1, 2, 3

This barely scratches the surface; most such edits have been done repeatedly from each IP. Also done repeatedly: addition of non-notable relatives to infoboxes, addition of unsourced data to BLPs, laundry lists of "notable works" in infoboxes, etc. (Edit: meantime, as this pattern continues, I would swear this guy is paid by the word. "[death_cause =] Suicide by shooting following a self-inflicted gunshot wound leading to death"? Seriously?)

This person is largely if not entirely responsible for a previous report.

70.212.34.16 already has been blocked twice, most recently for two weeks as of 24 May. I am requesting a three-month block to each of these IPs, with more possibly to come. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This IP-hopper does not respond to inquires, comments or reproofs, but continues with the same type of edits. If the editor behind the IPs had an account, an indef would not be out of line. BMK (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Note: 70.212.34.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked by @Coffee: May 23, 2016 for two weeks for "(persistent addition of unsourced content)" --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As I note above. Thanks. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Potentially connected IP editors. The IP addresses above have also made similar edits to articles that were brought to ANI attention earlier in May. This is a long-term pattern using multiple IPs of wireless carriers. AldezD (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for your hard work on that report, which I linked above. If I'd thought about it, I'd've pinged you, sorry. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Admins: May we get action on this? The disruption of the encyclopedia continues. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, ATinySliver. Individually some of the edits seem quirky but innocuous, but the pattern of their editing is disruptive and bizarre at times. I have blocked as requested. I am sure they will hop on to new IPs, so we may need to semi-protect the most common target articles. Fences&Windows 23:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ping, ATinySliver. Fences&Windows 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My thanks, F&W. It is true that some of the user's edits are perfectly acceptable, while some that otherwise appear acceptable will introduce—repeatedly and aggressively—unsourced data to BLPs. The norm, as you note, is the "disruptive and bizarre" behavior. When this user hops again—and he will—more such blocks will undoubtedly be needed. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

He's back already. Please see your talk, F&W. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Reporting User:Puffmuffin for disruptive editing on Quetta

Reporting User:Puffmuffin for disruptive editing on Quetta after repeatedly asking him to engage in discussion at Talk:Quetta#Languages. He is intent on removing scholarly sourced information, adding unsourced and poorly sourced information mostly sourced to blogs and websites. Requesting a block for Puffmuffin for disruptive editing and his recent revert should be reverted because that is the wrong version and page should be fully protected. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown wants to have me banned because he wants to make the Quetta page article only the way he sees it fit. He persistently removes valid sources and replaces them with dead and fake sourced edits to make the demographic section the way he wants it to be. He then reports any user who oppose his invalid edits. He even abused me in Pashto language using Roman characters so that the moderators won't notice. That is the reason he wants to have the page protected.Puffmuffin (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Puffmuffin: - it would help us if you a) signed your posts; b) indented your posts; and c) provided us with diffs for allegations of abuse. If you do this, particularly the diffs, you have a better chance of such allegations being investigated. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: - how about we just lock the Quetta article at the WP:WRONGVERSION? Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Mjroots (talk) If you have to lock the page please first investigate the intentions of User:SheriffIsInTown. Puffmuffin (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Locking the page is done to prevent further disruption. It does not particularly matter which version it is locked at, as long as BLP and COPYVIO are not violated. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, Mjroots, the page should not be locked at wrong version, we should not let POV pushing and unsourced content stay in the article. Since, I opened this thread, we have also received the opinion of some more editors at talk and it seems there is a consensus against Puffmuffin. Mistakenly, Puffmuffin also have accepted to socking using IP addresses while accusing me of abusing him in Pashto, that IP who wrote something in Pashto is not me and I don't know what it means but he has accepted the IP who was complaining about abuse in summary lines was him. He should be blocked for socking, it will save me trouble of opening an SPI. I will soon add related diffs. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Mjroots: Confirming that the page is locked at the right version but please take socking and disruptive editing of Puffmuffin into consideration and block him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I checked I DO see an I.P editor asking SheriffIsInTown why they abused them in Pashto in an edit summary here there is some text at the end which is NOT English and I'm not able to decipher it. The poster in this case is NOT SheriffIsInTown, it's another I.P. This might be the swearing in Pashto Puffmuffin's talking about. KoshVorlon 19:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I presume the phrase "Sta roray ghayam" is meant. Google translate does not identify it as Pashto. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know Pashto, but that transliterates to "ستة روري غيم". The last word of that translates to "fuck" in English: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%BA%D9%88%D9%88%D9%84#Pashto forgot to sign Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

(See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%BA%D9%8A%D9%85.) "روري" is a way of writing the name "Rory", apparently (Google Translate says so, and Web search appears to confirm). "ستة" means "there", "whatever", or "suggest" among other meanings, according to Google Translate. forgot to sign AGAIN. #brilliant #fail Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: Yes the page should be locked at the right version. He just removed three references I added earlier to the demographic section of the Quetta page. Again if you have to lock the page investigate and know the intentions of User:SheriffIsInTown. I suspect that he's using multiple IDs.Puffmuffin (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I had tried reasoning with Puffmuffin. Then even tried explaining him (more like spoon feeding), but both attempts yield nothing. Rather he exactly did what he was doing earlier. He's surely not here to build WP. He did not even bother reading the new changes that were made, which were infact inline with his own argument! The guy just does not read before hitting the 'undo' button!

The guy also thinks that the sun revolves around him, and hence everybody on WP (both IPs and registered users) are here to counter him. —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TripWire is another ID for the User:SheriffIsInTown He's using multiple IDs to mislead others. They both use the term "Dude" quite often it cannot be a coincidence. Both are removing the same three sources I add to the demographics section of the Quetta page. Please lock the page at the right version. DONOT be mislead. Puffmuffin (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Mjroots:

Re:Sun. Told ya!—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: You claimed that the page was fully protected but it was not. Puffmuffin is continuing to edit-war with another editor now.
• @Puffmuffin: The Wikipedia community will soon know who have been editing using multiple IDs since May 2007 and also disrupted Wikipedia using IP addresses of one you accepted in your previous comment. If you have doubts about my ability then see User:SheriffIsInTown#Successful sock-puppet investigations. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have pinged a few Pashto speaking users to see if they'll come and assist. KoshVorlon 21:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Zarghun11: The phrase in Pashto is related to personal abuse,one of the harsh abuse use by pathan, meaning to fucking someone.Zarghun11 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I understand this might have been something very bad which was hurled at his IP address by another IP address but he is implicating that i was the person behind that IP which is not true but in doing so he has accepted that the IP (182.183.128.230) which complained about the abuse was him and also the IP (119.160.119.118) towards whom the abuse was hurled was him too. Blaming me for that abuse might be coming from his recognition of abusing me previously using an IP address (182.183.183.191). The summary was revdelled. It started something like that "SheriffIsInTown, you son of a.....", i am not writing what was next because i do not want to abuse myself. Notice the similarities in the IP addresses, 182.183.183.191 is based at same location if you check WHOIS as is 182.183.128.230, his accepted sock. Although, i do not appreciate and condone the abuse which was hurled at him but considering his past abuse history, he was given a dose of his own medicine by that IP. I would also request admins to concentrate more on his disruption and accepted socking because once the page protection is over, he is going to start disruption and edit-warring again despite the consensus which has developed against him, his sources are rejected by Dennis Brown here at ANI, by Kautilya3 and TripWire at Talk:Quetta and the response about my source was affirmative by both Kautilya3 and TripWire. We have so far no inclination by Puffmuffin that he will accept that consensus so if not blocked despite all these violations, he is going to continue further with his violations and disruptions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

At no stage did I ever claim the article was locked. That remains an option. As it's bedtime here in the UK, I'll leave this for those operating in UTC-5 to UTC-9 to deal with, if they'd be so kind . Will look in tomorrow. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, that was frustrating but did prove a point. Puffmuffin, one of the links you provided was a scamware virus thing. Locked up my browser when I went to the "contact us" page, but I'm an IT guy so it was just inconvenient to shut down all the instances of Chrome to shut up that "you are infected" canned voice. Someone please go add historypak.com to the global blacklist here and under no circumstances go there. The other sources you added, lonelyplanet.com (fails WP:RS) and blogs.tribune.com.pk (borderline, except she isn't listed as staff, so you have to assume is a frequent guest contributor, so not so reliable). Puffmuffin, you are new here so I'm trying to cut you a little slack. I'm not saying everyone else is perfectly innocent, but you added some real garbage there, the kind that hurts the encyclopedia. The first rule of editing is improve the encyclopedia, not hurt it. You all need to go to the talk page and use that, discuss, etc. It is full protected for a week. I went back to what I thought was a recent but safe version (didn't really read, so I have no preferred version), which is surely the wrong version, but that's the breaks. You need to listen more Puffmuffin, win others over with your good ideas, not by brute force, and read WP:RS and learn the difference between a good source and "some website that just says what I want it to say". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: doesn't look fully protected to me [81]. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Should be now, and I've removed all instances of that domain on enwp and reported to the blacklist myself. Thanks for the heads up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: Puffmuffin is not a new editor, he is editing since May 2007, have used many IPs to do his disruption over those years, uses his account only to continue his disruption once pages are protected. Rest for the SPI when I am ready for that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by Pizzaandchips11, Violation of 3RR

• Pizzaandchips11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User Pizzaandchipps11 has participated in harmful editing on the page Khalifa (mixtape) and is in clear violation of the 3RR. After the first edit was made, I pointed him to the talk page where a discussion thread was created for the issues, which the user ignored. After the second edit he was informed that one more edit would result in a report for violating 3RR. Weweremarshall (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are links to the edits: [82] [83] [84] [85]

Hey Weweremarshall, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Since you are a relatively new user, there's a few things I want to point out to you. When you initiate a discussion with a user on the administrators' noticeboard, we ask that you leave a talk page message to let the user know about the conversation. That way they can have the opportunity to respond. Also, we have a dedicated page to report edit warring. Finally, it's a minor point, but we consider the two edits on May 29th to be one "revert" under the 3 revert rule. So the user has come close but hasn't crossed it yet. That being said, I do agree that there is some edit warring going on here and the user should engage in discussion with editors before making another revert. @Pizzaandchips11: Could you do that? Otherwise, I would have to agree with Weweremarshall that a block would be appropriate. Mike V • Talk 18:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN3 or WP:AIV; not here in either case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You are right, Mike V, I am a little new here, especially to reporting people. I did however, leave a notice on the users talk page. I will make a note of the other things you pointed out, thank you very much for the assistance! The user in question has a tendency to completely ignore other users as most of his edits include no summary and most of the notices left on his talk page go unanswered. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you as well, _Muffled ^Pocketed. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Poirot Holmes

Can someone help me. I am dealing with an apparent good faith editor (see [86]), but could be a vandal, whose ramblings I do not understand and I don't want to be unprofessional. For example, I get messages like this from him/her:

How can I promote something by indicating that it is a copy and probably shameful one at that???

sir, Sent u message on ur talkpage. CRITICISM not commercialism! Please go thru mu mail & ask for any proof u like!

I have advised the editor to desist from editing until he/she acquires the faculties to do so. Quis separabit? 20:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Appears they want to shame(?) an author for using the same title for their novel that was the title of a Christie short story in The Hound of Death... or something like that. But your removal of the link seems correct. I've followed the article page... You're assuming good faith, but I don't see much room for it at this point. Their edits are disruptive and appear to have negative intent re: the author of the linked book. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @EvergreenFir for your explanation. Quis separabit? 12:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rms125a@hotmail.com! I want to point out your responses here and here. If you want to assume good faith, don't make threats to block someone and then speak to them as if they are trolls or idiots. Making threats to block someone in an angered fashion (which your response appears to be doing when you follow-up with "get it?") will incentivize bad faith editors to continue what they're doing (and even more so), since your responses will be essentially feeding him. Or, it will bite someone who really didn't understand. And going off on someone in all capital letters will further do the same -- it makes you appear as if you are angry, and (again) will either further chase away someone who was simply new, or will feed the troll even more. If you need more help and coaching with communication with this user, please leave a message on my talk page. That's my specialty, and I'll be happy to help you out :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Oshwah. I was getting stressed out so I withdrew from the field of battle. Quis separabit? 12:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob's been here ten years pal, but I'm sure he appreciates the offer _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Quis separabit? 12:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - LOL, I wasn't offering him help thinking that the guy was a n00b! Even experienced editors occasionally need some help with DR and communication. He asked for help, so I offered help :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Quis separabit? 12:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've left the editor a note. If he or she is a good-faith editor, hopefully it will help. If he or she is trolling, this should become apparent soon enough. Let's see what happens next. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Newyorkbrad. Quis separabit? 12:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC disruption

It's hard to think an RFC remains valid after the concerted and constant disruption of it by User:CFCF: [87], [88][89]. —Kww(talk) 01:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

All of these edits were made early on the 25th. I question how much of an impact it had on the RFC if it took almost six days to report nor why the entire RFC should be invaladated.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It was reported on ANI and only argued amongst some of the people from the RfC. The edits above look like CFCF was removing people's talk message, but was not. Beetstra, Hasteur and CFCF were moving messages. CFCF kept reverting the other two's moves. Not sure who is or isn't "right". Bgwhite (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Beetstra, Hasteur and CFCF were moving messages. CFCF kept reverting the other two's moves. - CFCF was moving the messages, Hasteur and I kept reverting their moves. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole RfC is kind of a mess. It takes the form of "This thing is great, but it's on the blacklist. Should we take it off? PS: other discussion links" without giving any of the reasons it remained blacklisted after three other RfCs. So of course it got a bunch of support votes out of the gate. People responded to votes on both sides, but CFCF opted to only remove questions directed at support votes to a separate section. It may well have been in good faith, but it's also disruptive in that those comments are now completely out of context, with no attempt made to restore context or even fix the syntax, making them somewhat unreadable and separated from everything else. Meanwhile the threads responding to the oppose votes are enormous. I don't think there's any admin action that needs to be taken, but I do question whether a consensus from this messy RfC can really take the place of the three before it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• With almost a 3-1 Support-oppose, anyone who closes that other than removing it from the blacklist had better have a cast iron reason for doing so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think continuous one-sided pruning of the RFC by an involved editor would constitute a cast-iron reason.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I moved out what I found to be a series of disruptive edits: [90] with the following edit: [91]

In three hours time one user chose to comment on nearly each and every support vote — often repeating the same or at least similar arguments to different people. I found this was also counter to the original intent of the RFC which specified:

1. add a numbered entry under appropriate section like # short comment. --~~~~, or simply # --~~~~.
2. (optional) further discussion can be added under the Discussion section.

As such I believe I was acting in the interest of promoting discussion, and discussion occurred quite extensively in the new section I had created.

More than a day later the same user now chose to move this commentary and discussion back into the vote section: [92]

This edit impacted more than 2.5x more text and moved substantially more editors comments. The rational was that the previous move had influenced the commentary and was opposed to WP:TPO — not considering that this edit changed far more editors comments.

I objected to this assertion, moving it back to the discussion section. I also stated that the only reason I moved the text in the first place was because it was a massive addition during a very limited time — which I interpreted to go against the formalities outlined for the RFC (not by me) and how discussion had occurred previously.

It was then objected that this was a form of cleansing the Support section for criticism, and that this was not neutral. This was in part because discussion continued to bloom in the oppose section after my first move (despite the instructions of the RFC). I expressed my full support of moving discussion out of the oppose-section as well [93], with the proviso that Beetstra had voted twice and that I did not want to change the meaning of this — so it might be best if he/she move this discussion instead.

The situation amounted to: damned if you do, damned if you don't — so I chose to leave it up to the editors who opposed the motion to move out that discussion. I understand that this may have been perceived as wishing to impact the outcome — but in light of my willingness to move even the Oppose section to comply with the set instructions I do not believe it has been disruptive.

Neither do I think this has adversely impacted the RFC — the rationale and discussion is clear for all who visit the page. Only if you contend that users base their support or opposition only upon the number of others support/oppose has it made an impact. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 17:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that most of the attendee's based their !votes on the "supports" above that it falsely appeared no one had taken the time or effort to refute.—Kww(talk) 02:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF: - "what I found to be disruptive edits" - yet again such language from you. If you found them disruptive you either could have come to me first (you did not even bother to tell me afterwards), or you could have brought it to attention of uninvolved editors. That in combination with ad hominim remarks, bolded responses if people argue against your points .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've clashed with CFCF in the past over very similar behaviour directed at me. I feel that CFCF does have a history of managing other people's talk page contributions while involved. My sense is that he's well-intentioned, but he has an awful lot of faith in his own judgment and not much in other people's, which makes him behave inappropriately. No comment on this particular case.—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about tenacious legal claimant at Talk:The Matrix

There's someone who identifies as Sophia Stewart who claims to be the owner of The Matrix franchise following one or more lawsuits. The article about her was deleted at AfD in 2009, and it has been added to The Matrix article and on the talk page many, many times (as far back as 2003 -- see multiple sections in each of Archive 1, Archive 2 and Archive 4).

Today another user, seemingly claiming to be Stewart, is back (User:Neuroelectronic). I responded by moving the section down, adding the gist of the responses it has received in the past, and hatting it. It looks like he/she has doubled down and restored it to the top of the page.

Normally in such a case I'd probably start a conversation explaining relevant Wikipedia policies (WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, for example), but this isn't a user trying to improve the article -- it's either Stewart making actual legal claims, a user pushing a POV, ...or a troll spreading a meme. Per the latter, you see, Snopes and Time Magazine are two of many sources which have identified this story as bunkum. But those sources, the user says, are outdated, and there has actually been a more recent legal judgment in Stewart's favor. The links he/she provided to verify the claims are still terrible, as they are every time (one hosted at innersites.com and one at matrixterminator.com), but if there are actual legal claims being made here (regardless of merit), I'd prefer not to engage further.

So how should a claim like this be handled? Should the user be referred elsewhere and the talk page comments left intact? Should the comments be removed and the account reported to ARV as a promotion-only account, etc. I'm hoping to get a sense of what should happen, as well, when this user inevitably comes back. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The user claims it's a separate ruling made after the publication of the Time piece, et al. (in 2014). But, again, the links for that ruling are to documents hosted on obviously unreliable sources. Personally, if I had just won $3,500,000,000 because I own the Matrix franchise, I wouldn't be desperate for that information to appear in the Wikipedia article, but that's just me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

one thing that makes no sense if that the user also claimed the judge ruled that they had the rights to the Terminator franchise in 2014 but Terminator Genisys premiered in June 2015. There certainly would have been some coverage about the ruling since it clearly would have affected the release of Genisys.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Also Snopes was last updated in 2015. One would presume this means no good info on this alleged 2014 victory had reached the author then. Really even without Terminator Genisys and the contractual negotiations beforehand which were well covered, it's not plausible that no RS noticed a $3.5 billion lawsuit which handed over the rights of two of the most notable franchises of all time. Even if this really is the case, it surely can't be hard to find RS such as the author of Snopes to cover it. After all, someone who won a $3.5 billion lawsuit is someone who would have it much easier to get people to listen. Given the history here, until and unless there actually are RS discussing the recent victory, it's fine to shut down any discussion based on claims not supported by RS, regardless of whether these RS are allegedly outdated. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, even if it's true that the editor being discusssed won a court judgement against their former attorney due to breach of contract, this little relevance to either the Matrix or Terminator articles. Note that the editor is apparently using wikipedia in court cases which while understandably being rejected, is another sign that great caution needs to be taken and of a strong COI [94] Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd echo Nil's concerns. In some disputes, having information favoring one side in Wikipedia can be seen as evidence in favor of that party. It's dangerous to have content in an article being introduced as fact in a litigation or other dispute resolution. We know that Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source but in the offline world, a party could make a claim that whatever is written in a Wikipedia article is 100% accurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This slightly duplicates my second comment as I planned to submit it as an edit but took too long & it had already been responded to. I've tried to reduce duplication but it's difficult to completely remove it.

It seems there are two seperate issues here. One is the claim the named person won some claim relating to legal rights over the two franchises along with $3.5 billion. I see zero real evidence for this. (Someone claiming I won "X" is not evidence.)

The second is the claim they won a judgement against their former attorney due to breach of contract. There's a link to an alleged court judgement on an unreliable site [95]. Beyond the fact it's impossible to verify that this document is genuine and hasn't been modified, it actually has little relevance to either the Matrix or Terminator articles. It's a default judgement because the person they were suing never responded, perhaps because they were dead. As far as I can tell, there wasn't any real consideration of whether the copyright claim had any merit or could have been won. Especially interesting is that the court didn't award any damages on the possibility they could have won the case since Hollywood accounting meant both franchices lost money. The money they were allegedly awarded (and I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the document is genuine) was based on the fees and judgements against them as a result of their earlier failed court case and incurred for the new court case.

I don't see any reason to think the judge in this case against the former attorney would have any involvement in any new court case to win rights over the franchise. Nor is there any mention of such in the case against the former attorney. (Actually I get the feeling from reading the judgement that the judge involved would much rather they were Judge Judy and could just kick people out of their court at their own whim.) So there's even more reason to disbelieve this claim of a $3.5 billion judgement convering "ownership" from the same judge based on the very sources being presented.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I read the only one that seems to award her anything, which Nil Einne sounds to have also read. Summary: Stewart sued Hollywood herself, someone offered legal services, both parties acted incompetently, but the lawyer is a lawyer so isn't allowed to act incompetently. Legal fees and other stuff awarded. The only relevant part for us, it seems, is where it talks about the copyright claims, and as Nil Einne notes it doesn't really get into the merits of the case, as far as I can see -- it just looks at it closely enough to see that her numbers (pulled from imdb and an unattributed email) were way too high and nothing can actually be awarded so those claims about what shouldacoulda if the lawyer was competent are denied. ...And as that's the one the user linked to this time -- as the most up-to-date evidence backing the claims on the talk page -- it seems we can conclude bunkum indeed.

It may well be that Stewart got screwed out of a few bucks, if the Wachowskis, et al. had purchased the story up front, and if The Matrix was indeed based on it, but we have a serious failure of WP:V here.

Would it be inappropriate to add a FAQ-style talk page banner about this, advising to remove the content immediately and explaining why? That's sort of a content issue that should get consensus at the article talk page, but I'd like to get opinions here, too, because it's also about the conduct of one or more users who repeatedly bring this up with different accounts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - That's not a bad idea. In the end, the "older" sources (TIME and Snopes) say that nothing happened, and the "court document" to me is irrelevant, since it's hosted on a non-government domain and we can't verify its authenticity. Really, it seems like none of this content is article-worthy. We just have to remember that it's about verifiability, not truth. The account has a clear COI and shouldn't be touching the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I find the edits a bit bizarre. The user had about 40 edits between 2009 and 2014, with none to The Matrix. Now after two years they return and make this odd claim. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• The content issue is not something for ANI. In terms of their behavior, I don't see a problem yet. We just ignore what people say about who they are in the real world, and all that matters is the sources they bring. So tell them "nobody on the internet knows you are a dog" and ignore their future claims of RW identity. The sources are no good - we need very reliable sources for an extraordinary claim like this (which would surely covered by independent reliable sources if it were real) - so the sources are not good enough; just explain why. Do that a couple times, then WP:SHUN. It they start to WP:BLUDGEON or edit war, that is actionable behavior for an ANI thread. I would say there is nothing to do here now, as this account has not made that many talk comments yet. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Odd stuff at Musahiban

Could someone please take a look T the edit I just reverted and the IP edit at my talk page? Article needs rebuilding but from trainable sources. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Good revert. Threats by another IP (sock/meat puppet). I suggest blocking both (or at least the latter) per WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR (if you do not understand that threats are not done, you're blatantly incompetent). Kleuske (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. There seems to be a lot of IP-hopping going on, here and WP:NPOV seems an unfamiliar concept. Kleuske (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Mohammadzai has been edited by Doug's IP editor, and appears entirely unsourced. Just sayin' -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Toreeva making repeated personal attacks / harassment.

Here- Saying her (autobiographical) article was "deleted by Joseph2302, who looks following me everywhere.... he deleted [my Teahouse request] request also, and banning me from his Talkpage- the latter he explained was due to her repeated self-promotion on his TP. This was on top of her complaint that he deleted her drawings, and her decision that the Teahouse did not know what they are talking about. The problem for her is that her WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is under an AfD here; the editor continued there, saying "please stop harassing me and follow everywhere demanding the deletion of the article and 5 drawings... I don't know you, your motives, but your action is definitely not in a good faith, and does not make the good face for the Wikipedia." The problem for WP is that such an incollegiate attitude- up to and including harasment of other users- amounts to disruption.

Suggest editor- 'spoken with'- for a final time. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Doesn't look like the editor has been active in the last 15 hours, so they may have given up? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering they've been here since March with a single-purpose, I doubt they'll go away that easily, Samtar. The problem is they are not listening to advice, and are determined to bombard multiple editors with persistent questions about the same thing (myself, Theroadislong and Ymblanter have all been victim to this). As for their claims I've harassed them, I gave up on this article/draft over a month ago, and only got reinvolved after seeing they were annoying Theroadislong the same way they were annoying me (persistent argumentative behaviour, and total insistence that they must be notable). Their images had no licence when I nominated them for deletion, and their drafts & articles have been deleted by multiple administrators. The comments against me on Talk:Natalia Toreeva and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva (combined with the hatted rant on there as well), show they're not going to stop, and they're not going to contribute positively to anything else but their autobiography. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A fair point Joseph2302, perhaps wishful thinking? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I was one of the editors along with User:Ymblanter who edited the concerned article and tried to engage with her (see here). (For reference, I got involved via this post at COIN). After a while I got a bit annoyed as Toreeva was not able to understand my point about notability even after explaining multiple times. Which is why I referred her to the Teahouse for another opinion. Later I gave up on the article. (I was never personally attacked by her though).

My suggestion here would be to leave it and let the AfD run its course. Whatever is decided in the AfD will have to be accepted by everyone. That solves the problem --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

MugiMafin

A relatively new user named MugiMafin has tried to change the definition in the article "Japanese idol" several times already. That's almost the only thing he does on Wikipedia since last September.

• September 19
• April 17
• April 27
• May 25 (This time he just placed a tag, but still...)
• May 28
• May 31

Read the ongoing discussion on the talk page

• "Talk:Japanese idol#There's more than just the "cute teenage girl" kind of idol".

As you will see, he didn't find support for the changes he wanted to implement, that's probably why he acts like that. (Actually, I did find his ideas reasonable, but just read the discussion. It seems like he doesn't really want to work on the article, at all. The first thing that he does when he comes back lately is change the definition.)

I will now ping OpenFuture and Nihonjoe (who have participated in the discussion on the "Japanese idol" talk page.)

Also read this. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive314#User:Moscowconnection reported by User:MugiMafin (Result: Declined). (He reported me the next day I placed the first warning tag on his user page.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As you will see if you read the discussion, I have in fact found support for my changes, quoted and explained the relevant parts from the source in the talk section and took all of Moscow Connection's concerns into consideration with my last edit. See this for some more information: [96] MugiMafin (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:LISTEN. Why are coming back and doing the same thing over and over?
(I've wasted enough time on this already. Now I just hope the article will have a couple of months of peace.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the AN3 report, I'm not seeing any 3RR violations, but someone may still see edit warring due to the overall length of time that both of you may have been going back-and-fourth on the article. I'm going to look at both of your edits made to the article and come back with what I find. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The source provided in the article... I'm not seeing where it explicitly defines what an "idol" is. Moscow Connection, MugiMafin: Can one of you two provide me the quote that is being used to support the content in the article so I can find it in the source? The following text appears to be what is in dispute: "The first new music performers were accomplished singer-songwriters, rather than 'manufactured stars' such as idols (Aoyagi 1999)", which appears to be what Moscow Connection is referring to when he reverts MugiMafin's changes (such as here). Can you confirm this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It was here all the time: [97].

reference quotes from sources by Moscow Connection

(Book 1.) Hiroshi Aoyagi. Islands of eight million smiles: idol performance and symbolic production in contemporary Japan. Harvard University Asia Center, 2005 Since the late 1960s a ubiquitous feature of popular culture in Japan has been the "idol," an attractive young actor, male or female, packaged and promoted as an adolescent role model and exploited by the entertainment, fashion, cosmetic, and publishing industries to market trendy products. This book offers ethnographic case studies regarding the symbolic qualities of idols and how these qualities relate to the conceptualization of selfhood among adolescents in Japan and elsewhere in East Asia. The author explores how the idol-manufacturing industry absorbs young people into its system of production, molds them into marketable personalities, commercializes their images, and contributes to the construction of ideal images of the adolescent self. This dissertation focuses on the production and development of a conspicuous, widespread culture phenomenon in contemporary Japan, which is characterized by numerous young, mediapromoted personalities, or pop-idols, who are groomed for public consumption. The research, based on eighteen months of in-depth fieldwork in the Japanese entertainment industry, aims to contribute to the understanding of the allegorical role played by pop-idols in the creation of youth culture. Pop-idols are analyzed as personified symbols that function as vehicles of cultural production. The principal issues suggested in this research include: the criteria of popidol production; the ways in which pop-idols are produced; the perceptions of pop-idol performances by producers, performers, and consumers; the ways in which idol personalities are differentiated from each other; the ways in which pop-idol performances are distinguished from other styles or genres; and the social, cultural, political, economic, and historical roots as well as consequences of pop-idols' popularity. These issues are explored through the examination of female pop-idols. The single, most important function of pop-idols is to represent young people's fashions, customs, and lifestyles. To this end, the pop-idol industry generates a variety of styles that can provide the young audience with pathways toward appropriate adulthood. They do this within their power structure as well as their commercial interest to capitalize on adolescence - which in Japan is considered the period in which individuals are expected to explore themselves in the adult social world. The stylized promotion, practiced differently by promotion agencies that strive to merchandise pop-idol images and win public recognition, constitutes a field of symbolic contestation. The stage is thus set for an investigation of the strategies, techniques, and processes of adolescent identity formation as reified in the construction of idol personalities. This dissertation offers a contextualized account of dialogue that occurs between capitalism, particular rhetoric of self-making, and the lifestyle of consumers, mediated by pop-idols and their manufacturing agencies that function together as the cultural apparatus. The analysis developed in this dissertation hopes to provide theoretical and methodological contributions to the study of celebrities in other social, cultural, and historical settings. Kawaiko-chan, or "cute girls and boys," has become a synonym for idols in Japanese, representing carefully crafted public personae that try to appeal to viewers' compassion. (Book 2.) William W. Kelly. Fanning the Flames: Fans and Consumer Culture in Contemporary Japan. SUNY Press. 2012. The first new music performers were accomplished singer-songwriters, rather than “manufactured stars” such as idols (Aoyagi 1999). (Book 3.) Timothy J. Craig. Japan Pop: Inside the World of Japanese Popular Culture. Routledge. 2015. Going throught a difficult period of of physical and emotional development themselves, adolescent fans can easily empathize with idols who are embarking on their own growth journey: from inexperienced debutantes to experienced public figures and performers. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (Book 4.) Historical Dictionary of Postwar Japan A final musical genre is an idoru or "idol," largely a product of Japanese merchandising. Idol refers to the cute, girl-next-door singers who are designed, controlled, and marketed just like any other product. Talent agencies promote such starlets in advertising, music, television dramas, and performance tours. (Book 5.) Japan at the Millennium: Joining Past and Future Until the early 1990s, the most common feature embodied by pop idols to enhance the sense of companionship was cuteness. Kawaiko-chan, or "cute boys and boys," became a synonym for pop idols in 1970s and 1980s (Figure 7.2). ... according to Kuroyanagi Tetsuko, ..., people adore cute idols for their sweetness, which evokes the sense that "they should be protected carefully" ... --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC) And the book MugiMafin used as a source for his latest changes. He says it is the most up-to-date. But it again says idols are cute or cute-something. {Book 6.} Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture Idol performance has demonstrated new turns since I introduced its symbolic significance to the world, and changed in ways I would have never expected: instances are the growing popularity of Japanese pop idols alongside cutesy phenomena, manga and anime, as well as centers of “Cool Japan,” such as Shibuya and Akihabara, among European and American audiences in a form that may be called neo-Orientalism; the influx of Korean idols, such as BoA, Jinki, Kara, and Shōjo Jidai, into Japan’s pop idol scene; the transformation of idol imagery from cutesy to more sexy, classy, and/or hip personal configurations alongside emergent hybrid buzzwords, such as erokawa (sexy-cutesy), kirekawa (classy-cutesy), and kawakakoii (cutesy-trendy)

Also note that I many times proposed that he could add all the additional information about how idols had changed somewhere lower in the article. But he just kept coming back and changing the first sentence. (Yes, he added one small paragraph, but he didn't even reference it. I said he should reference it, but he still didn't.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Moscow Connection - Oh, perfect. Thank you. I started going through the edits made in the article first, and started reading through the sources. Apparently, I should have started with the talk page discussion; else I wouldn't have wasted your time having to have you show (again) the references you're referring to. Sorry about that, by the way... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think your book sources and quotes seem just fine. They offer different perspectives with what is considered an "idol" in this culture, and your version of the article references them. I see that from the talk page discussion that (after some arm-twisting from Moscow Connection), MugiMafin finally provided a book (here), but there seems to be disagreements by MugiMafin with the use of some of the wording from this source (which was followed by back-and-fourth reverting). The issue I think we may be having is the fact that people have different views on what they define as "an idol", as well as what or who they idolize. What is wrong with providing both of your viewpoints? Where the article says "an idol can be defined like this, while others believe that it's also like that"? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about the first paragraph of the "ambiguity of the term" section? That actually has a reference. Also, the problem with the article certainly isn't that it doesn't have enough paragraphs. The problem is that a lot of the existing paragraphs aren't properly sourced or the result of misinterpretations or a bad selection of sources (as is the case with the definition the way I see it). So instead of adding more paragraphs to the article I prefer improving the existing ones, from top to bottom. MugiMafin (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

MugiMafin - Yes, since this section appears to be where you two had this dispute at. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No, we had a dispute about the very first sentence of the whole article.
But yes, I would like MugiMafin to reference the only paragraph he added to the article, and it is the first paragraph of the "Ambiguity" section. Cause, you see, he said that the article was bad and unsourced and how his aim was to improve it, but look at the source he added, does it say what the paragraph says?
Quote:
Although idols are often defined as something like "young manufactured stars/starlets", there are idols who push the boundaries of such a definition, like members of the groups SMAP and Arashi, who range in age from around 30 to over 40.^[98]" --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

MugiMafin - Exactly which sources in the article are a "bad selection"? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say any of the sources were bad in their entirety, just in respect to being the foundation for a definition of what Japanese idols are today. The Aoyagi quotes from 1999 (Book 2) and 2005 (Book 1) are questionable because in 2012 Aoyagi said that idols changed in ways he would have never expected when he wrote those first books on them. The Book 4 quote says idols are always female, which isn't true, and the Book 5 quote actually starts its definition with "until the early 1990s", implying it shouldn't be used for a modern definition. The Book 3 quote is fine though. MugiMafin (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There are three or so quotes above that actually give a definition: "an attractive young actor, male or female, packaged and promoted as an adolescent role model", "manufactured stars" and "cute, girl-next-door singers who are designed, controlled, and marketed just like any other product". They are used. Everything else can be added as a separate paragraph. Why not add another paragraph to the lead section? I've already suggested to do it several times, but you keep changing the first sentence.
(By the way, I do think the article doesn't have enough paragraphs. If I had time to spend on it, I would add much more.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My take on the whole situation is that MugiMafin wants to toss out all refs he considers too old, in favor of the one new ref he likes better, and he is edit warring to try to do that. That just doesn't fly. All of them can be used, and wording can be put into the article noting the alleged slight change in definition over the years (I don't see it as a change so much as a slight broadening of the term). He has demonstrated a disregard for the policies and guidelines by engaging in the discussion while simultaneously trying to force the definition to go his preferred way (as demonstrated by the edits at the top of this section). He needs to learn to play better with others or he will get blocked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nihonjoe! You obviously know more about this situation and dispute than I do (I'm still "catching up"... haha). But I agree with your suggestion to talk about the change in the variation of the definition over the years. Like I said above, the definition is different with everyone; multiple aspects of what defines "an idol" are obviously going to pop up. Also, I appreciate the information regarding MugiMafin's rejection of references due to their age. The article should not replace the definition of an idol with "the best one", but instead should cover all of the definitions with equality and fairness. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the old refs staying at all actually, but I thought we should draw a new, less restrictive, definition from them. Not just because of my one source, but more importantly because there's counter-examples for all three attributes of the current definition: "young", "manufactured" and "star/starlet". The counter-example for "young" is already mentioned in the "ambiguity of the term" section, while counter-examples for "manufactured" and "star/starlet" come in the form of self-produced net idols as mentioned in the last source of the article's source list, archived here [99]. I would have actually been fine with just including a word like "typically" in the definition to account for these cases, as I told Moscow Connection a few times, but he didn't even accept that. I actually really like Oshwah's idea of providing more than one definition in the introduction though, and it would be nice if we could get Moscow Connection to accept that. MugiMafin (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

1. You can find counter examples for every definition in the world.
2. The current definition defines the common case and is directly supported by the three sources that can actually qualify as definitions ("an attractive young actor, male or female, packaged and promoted as an adolescent role model", "manufactured stars" and "cute, girl-next-door singers who are designed, controlled, and marketed just like any other product. Talent agencies promote such starlets in advertising, music, television dramas, and performance tours.").
3. The result of what you do is so ambiguious that it can be used for almost every pop star in the world. What is the point of a definition then? A reader will come from articles like "Babymetal", "AKB48", "Morning Musume", "Cute", "Arashi" and what will he read? That idol is a person? The current definition, on the other hand, works very well. (All counter examples can be discussed in a separate section. I suggested you to add an "Ambiguity" section, you did it, now write it. What's the problem, really? Why change the first sentence?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"Net idols" are "net idols", they are not the common sense of the word "idol". (By the way, they are already discussed in the "Net and virtual idols" section. Which is unsourced. Why don't you add references? And can mention them in the "Ambiguity" section.) --Moscow Connection -Moscow Connection (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the only counter example that you have provided so far is not even a counter example. Two pop groups that started as kids and now they are older? So what? I think they are young. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you be fine with using more than one definition in the introduction though, as Oshwah suggested? MugiMafin (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what can be used as a second definition. But, if you remember, since the very beginning of our discussion I've been suggesting that instead of changing the first sentence you could add a note about counter examples as a additional paragraph. (In the beginning I said it could be a second paragraph and I waited that you would add it, but you changed the first sentence again instead.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at the article and I think another definition can be added as a fourth paragraph in the lead section. How exactly do you want it to look? How can you integrate it into the lead section so that it doesn't look out of place? Can you propose an exact wording? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I already mentioned this as my preferred source for a definition on the talk page a few days ago: "Such is the power of “idols,” a word used in Japan to refer to highly produced and promoted singers, models, and media personalities. Idols can be male or female, and tend to be young, or present themselves as such". It's from Book 6 too. To use Oshwah's example from above, the final version could look like this: "an idol can be defined as a young manufactured star/starlet marketed as someone to be admired for their cuteness, while others say the word is used to refer to highly produced and promoted singers, models, and media personalities who can be male or female and tend to be young or present themselves as such". Can I use it like this in the article? MugiMafin (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Too many words, too repetitive and complicated, "while others say" doesn't fit with "can be defined", the second half is a copy-paste from the source.
Do you have another version?
Really, why don't you want to add another definition as a separate paragraph? Why the first sentence again? Why should there be two definitions in a row? Looking at this version, I don't think something like this will work. It's unreadable and uncomprehensible by a human. (Really, I can get the first half, I can get the second half, but I can't get the two combined.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to hear Oshwah's thought on my proposal before I make any other ones, because so far you rejected all of my around 10 suggestions, and not always for legitimate reasons. The reasons you gave this time don't sound particularly legitimate to me either, and I doubt it would be different next time, so instead of endlessly continuing this game of proposal and total rejection, I'd like to listen to what others have to say first. Also, since your objections seem to mostly be concerned with how the sentence sounds, you could propose one yourself that keeps my semantic content while sounding like you want it to sound. I don't know what sounds good to you and what doesn't, so you have to help me out here. MugiMafin (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What really needs to happen is updating the article itself first, and then determining what goes in the lead. The lead should be a brief summary of the content in the article, so unless something is already mentioned in the article outside of the lead, it shouldn't be in the lead. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's something I'm planning on doing too. But even now the first paragraph of the "ambiguity of the term" section[100] already explains what's wrong with the definition in the lead. So if we want the lead to reflect the article, the least we should do with the definition is turn the "an idol is a young manufactured star/starlet" part into something like ""idol" is a term typically used to refer to young manufactured stars/starlets". Wouldn't you agree? That's all the compromise I'm asking for really. MugiMafin (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Is a term typically used" — Yes, I would agree. And I would also agree to add "classy" or something like this (from the source you've been citing lately [101]) if it is made clear that cuteness is the common feature and everything else is optional and that idols are still cute. I would prefer it to be added as a second paragraph, but if you really, really want it, as a second sentence or even as an addition to the opening sentence. (By the way, I don't like the word "usually" in the current expression "usually cute". I think it could be changed to something like "common", and then it can be added that idols have changed towards more [something here]. But the definition should stay short and clear.) I hope Nihonjoe as a native speaker of English will help.
(By the way, I must say that I liked your idea of starting with "is a certain type of entertainment personality". But then you dropped it and never returned to it again.) (Sorry, by the way. I'm not sure I've seen this comment of yours before.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think both of you need to make a concerted effort to work out consensus on the talk page. Do not discuss each others' behaviors. Clearly define what changes you propose, and include references to back up the proposed changes. Be open to compromise. We often don't get everything we want, but if everyone is reasonably happy with the outcome, that is what we aim for. I don't see any reason for this thread to remain open as there is nothing for admins to do in this case (at the moment). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough. There's no guarantee the new discussion will turn out better than the one we've been having until now, but it can't hurt to give it a try. MugiMafin (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Page ownership issues on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice page

A pair of disruptive editors are subtly camouflaging page ownership abuse in the chaos of the point of view warring typical of comic book film articles.

Two editors are engaging in a clever slow motion edit war using the pretense of protecting the page from larger edit wars and trolling to hide their own point of view warring. Some of their efforts 2 protect the page are useful and welcome. This does not excuse them from using this as a smokescreen to wage their own edit war and disrupt others' good faith contributions that do not conform with their very narrow personal tastes.

Both GoneIn60 and Bignole cite consensus 4 their reverts of some good faith contributions despite having any clear votes or true consensus on the talk page. The talk page is a mess of bickering and socking. No clear consensus exists.

Both editors admit they are motivated by what they personally believe "sounds good" or their personal opinions over the movie's box office success or critical reaction. Personal preferences over how a sentence sounds is not proper justification for unilaterally reverting everyone else's stab at writing the article. Good faith attempts at refining the page or trimming the verboseness are greeted with hostility in the form of mindless templates and warnings on my IP without proper justification.They have a greater handle of process than me so I expect them 2 game the system against this complaint as the are doing with the page.Humbly I request help and resources 2 combat this elitism of the sort.

They are discouraging good faith contributions in their larger war 2 fight back point of view warring typical of comic book film pages. They are also using this chaos 2 sneakingly advance their own non-neutral points of view and page ownership wants. They are defending a right 2 paraphrase when the truth is that their "paraphrasing" is taking a source out of context and adding their own personal interpretations. It makes their paraphrase gaming a subtle WP:OR strategy. They are cleverly hiding their own 'drops-in-the-bucket', sly disruptive behavior behind the much worse 'louder' behavior of the tidal wave of trolls and socks constantly trolling the page.

Good luck with this. Wish I had the time 2 make right this article. Maybe y'all can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You are required to let the editors know they are being discussed here when you pose a new ANI thread by leaving a message on their talk page, I have done so for you. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My report acumen is rusty. Thank ya 4 fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2016‎ (UTC)

IP editor appears right after a sock is blocked, spouting the same argument. Interesting... --Tarage (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

What "sock?" My IP hub is heavily protected and private. There's no socking from here. There is probally meatpuppeting on the page I reported. It is slowmotion and extremely subtle 2 the point of being hard 2 prove so I declined against its inclusion in the complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2016‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure that I actually need to justify my actions and I don't think that Gone does either. If anyone looks at the talk page they will see that every edit that we have made or reverted back to has been based in part on a larger discussion about the wording of those items. This is not simply two editors willy-nilly reverting. There have been discussion and discussion on all of these points. If this IP is who they appear to be, then they were the 1 lone voice that kept making changes against consensus under the guise that it was still the same edit. Even after we explained how those edits changed the meaning of the statements.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, a sockpuppet saying the exact same thing you are saying gets banned, and then you appear out of the ether with the same argument and non-novice knowledge of how Wikipedia functions... and your ONLY edits are on the page where the sock was editing... I'm afraid that exhausted all potential good faith I could muster. Someone do a SPI please. --Tarage (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

For those who may not be aware, the SPI's referred to above are here. Take note of the veiled threat linked in the first discussion. I haven't submitted a new one based on this IP, as the amount of evidence to do so may be a bit lacking. It is interesting that comments so far are written in somewhat similar tone and grammar, however. Also, my response in the talk page discussion clearly illustrates the issues with the proposed edits and gives ample opportunity for the editor to explain them in more detail, so that other editors can weigh in and form a new consensus or reaffirm the current status quo. We are open to new suggestions, but the previous attempts didn't appear to be improvements IMHO. Some justification for them would be a start. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your problems with other editors and their socks is not my concern. It has nothing 2 do with my complaint.To mention it here is a dodge and distraction from your own possibly disruptive behavior.If an user happens 2 take the side of a troll who had a few good points among the dozen bad points it does not mean they are in a conspiracy with the trolls against U. That you and another editor with a history of disruptiveness so quickly made these allegations in a short time spam draws suspicion of the subtle meatpuppeting I wanted 2 include sans enough evidence 2 do so effectively.

Of the accusations against me, some sound stretched, all are simply untrue. Good to see that complaints of this kind are dismissed.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 'disruptive' and 'unconstructive' on the comic book film page and my talk page 2b inflammatory when commenting on my contributions. If you can't justify your accusations as a reasonable against my claims of a very real problem of page ownership wars on the page in question then I will consider your allegations ungrounded and inflammatory ad hominem attacks. The page ownership problems are WP:DUCK if I ever saw one, typical of those expensive divisive comic book movies.

Some of the socks you argued with were making some good points even if they were long winded and disruptive. The remedy to the bulverism you and the socks are guilty of is to accept some to accept that some reasoning is not tainted by the reasoner, some points are valid and some conclusions true, regardless of the identity and motives of the one who argues them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's be specific. "Other editors" and the plural "socks" all refer to one individual per the outcome of the SPI. That individual was using multiple accounts to add artificial support for his/her viewpoint in talk page discussions and article edits. That's where a lot of the "bickering" – as you put it – stemmed from. I am always open to new ideas and suggestions, because I take on the perspective that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress; they're never finalized. A glance through my contributions will show that I routinely work with other editors to achieve a working consensus. In fact, Bignole and I were at odds for a while about a particular statement in the lead (see Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Update). After further discussion, we were able to quickly dissolve the crisis. In this situation, you and other anonymous editors (assuming they are all different individuals), were attempting to ram proposed changes without discussion, some of which went against previously discussed outcomes. You were eventually willing to initiate one, but after the first response, you immediately escalated this to an ANI. The escalation, in my opinion, was very quick without giving the talk page a chance to work things out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You brought this onto yourself. You, not me, escalted this in a way that made it impossible 2 talk it out short of mediation. You grouped my constructive edits in with all the disruptive lurking,and slapped unnecessary warnings on my IP. Assuming that I am responsible 4 all the disruptiveness on your article was your 1st mistake.I went 2 the talk page and read up on the dispute when told 2 so.That is when I noticed the WP:OWN problems.The sock(s) made a few valid points along with several bad ones. That socking is seperate than the anon socking occurring on the article itself that you were citing as justification 4 your edit war against me.Surely you can't reasonably contend that all of that is me.You are exploiting that problem of point of view trolling on the page, and a strategy of false accusations, to enforce an edit war of your own to hide your personal point of view or personal tastes in the page.I am not socking, end of story. I object 2 your efforts to straw man those with whom you do not agree.I do not have 2 have good faith over your preemptive bad faith on my IP. The burden was on you when you went down that road.

There is much disruptive editing on your page where anon contributors are trying insert words like 'mixed' and praise for Affleck or Gadot in the lead. I welcome your efforts 2 protect wikipedia articles.That does not afford you and the editor sole discretion 2 decide how the plot section should read, for example, or every exact word in the lead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The first flurry of edits to the lead that came through were reverted, as each one touched a part of the lead that was previously discussed on the talk page. The edit summary of the revert clearly mentions this and suggests taking it to the talk page. Despite this, you reinstated your edit (diff) without explanation. Bignole partially reverted the edit (diff), followed by a quick re-revert on your part (diff), this time with an edit summary directed at Bignole. Clearly, you were quite aware that the partial reversion of your edit wasn't being grouped together with other anonymous editors, and it shows you pay attention to edit summaries. Yet, you ignored a previous request to discuss. In addition, a significant portion of your original edits have remained in the article (diff). The fact that 100% of your proposal didn't go through is no reason to feel slighted. It is still within your power to discuss the matter further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

'Investigate' me then then instead of moaning here about it. I have done nothing wrong. You should make a formal inquiry b4 slipping in personal attacks and judgement. Where was the "good faith?" Rationalizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2016‎ (UTC)

On the issue of existing/non-existing consensus on the talkpage; consensus is not based on a vote, what appears to be the entirety of the opposition to their position is made of sockpuppet users (until you came along) and can be disregarded. In other words, consensus exists. Also, this is one hell of a quick escalation, which brings your own motives into consideration. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Accusations? Bring it. My neutral contributions resulted in swift and hostile retribution and admonishments on my IP by bitter editors that brought their motives in2 question. The burden is not on me 2 prove a negative, or who I am not. That's an appeal to ignorance. Not everyone who disagrees with experienced editors are socks or aliases of noob anon trolls stalking your pages. Paranoid sham-intellectual witch hunts. Consensus is not assumed on changes not discussed in the 1st place! All my changes were reversed mostly without justification.They were based on previous revisions of the page I liked better than others, or trimming that needed 2 be done. I would not be here if knee jerk warnings were not dumped on my ip!! For the extremely narrow edits we can or can not make, it is too arbitrary 2 assume we know what you are thinkng. A vote over those exact specific changes should be recorded if it 'that' disputed, or something more specific should be outlined to warn us lurkers 2 avoid embarrassment or accidental edit warring. I see several anons making changes. Many of then denied creative access to the plot section, for example, for no other reason that you don't like it 4 personal reasons.That is on you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Y do U write like a hi 5chooler t3xting 2 her girlfriend? EEng 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 71.170.231.217, you have a lot better chance of having what you say taken seriously if you write using standard English spelling. This isn't Facebook. BMK (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the ip is a high-school girl. Which just leaves EEng's excuse...Primergrey (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick question about personal attacks in headers

The editor named Al-Andalusi made this edit to an article Talk page, naming me in the header and personally attacking me. I changed the header to a neutral wording and informed the editor of WP:TALKNEW, which prohibits naming editors in headers and attacking editors in headers. Now he's edit-warring with me to keep the problematic header. Can an admin tell me if I'm misunderstanding the guideline? (Full disclosure: The same editor is presently reverting every edit I make on the article, too, and I'm very close to reporting him/her, so this seemingly silly concern is just part of a much bigger issue.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, since this user has a history of edit warring. Please make a report about this user's other actions, since perhaps they'll warrant additional sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the neutral section heading. Also changed 604800 seconds on the block notice to one week. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Umm...all due respect Nyttend, but I'm gonna take issue with the block (disclosure: uninvolved until about ten minutes ago). It doesn't appear that anyone actually crossed 3RR, and a history of issues is not itself sufficient for a block. Furthermore, OP has lengthy block log of their own.

Seems pretty clear to me that this is a thinly veiled content dispute. I have a hard time believing that OP is ANI level offended because someone called them right wing or used their name in a header. It seems instead that both editors used most of day reverting each other instead of talking, and when Andalusi finally went to talk (which OP should have done to begin with), OP started another edit war on talk over a triviality and immediately ran to ANI.

Sorry, but borderline wikilawyering over TALKNEW and the mildest of incivilities does not justify a block that conveniently allows OP to avoid actually having a content discussion which should have started a while ago. I have addressed other content related issues on the page's talk, which is where all of this should have stayed. TimothyJosephWood 21:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input here, and on the article Talk page, Timothyjosephwood. I find merit in your comments about possibly problematic content in the article (i.e.; "right-wing" characterizations), none of which was added by me, and in your admonition to Al-Andalusi about his inappropriate Talk page headers and personal attacks. I fail to see the merit in your assertion that there was any kind of "Wikilawyering" going on, or in your description of accusations of prejudice and racism against myself (and not an administrator) are merely "mildest of incivilities". Xenophrenic (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) Further, OP is in serious BOOMERANG territory with an edit like this, which is fundamentally a continuation of the edit war, but with an edit summary of "+wikilinks" (because they apparently added nearly 700 bytes of purely brackets). TimothyJosephWood 22:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize my edit or the edit summary. I opened an edit screen - added two wikilinks to the 2 "Alans" in that section, after researching the correct disambiguated names - then clicked "Save page". The fact that the other editor introduced a full revert in the meantime was unknown to me, and didn't cause an edit conflict, and certainly wasn't intentionally part of a revert war. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: You're talking about WP:3RR which is a bright line rule for edit warring. But the edit warring policy stands on its own without 3RR and it says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions....Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks." The definition of an edit war doesn't mention how many reverts over what period of time. 3RR is just one standard bright line that we can use to, essentially, make an easy decision. But edit warring itself can be a more subjective consideration of many factors including but not limited to the number of edits in a certain time period.--v/r - TP 23:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Yes, I am familiar with 3RR, and I am familiar with the fact that both editors engaged in edit warring on both the article and the talk. If you're going to ban one, then ban them both and let them cool off. Banning one for something both did when they both should have been talking only rewards the first person to get their feelings hurt and run to ANI.TimothyJosephWood 23:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't do cooling off blocks and we don't block one person just because we blocked another. This isn't the fairness noticeboard. Administrators are supposed to look at the situation and use discretion to end the disruption. Nyttend determined that one of them was being more disruptive than the other and acted within his discretion. This has nothing to do with who got to ANI first.--v/r - TP 23:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Again, I'm sorry to disagree, but when an editor is blocked 41 seconds after their ANI notification, I have a hard time believing the blocking admin had time to thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding the report. Honestly, I fully expected an uninvolved contest of the block to result in an unblock from Nyttend at least for the purpose of discussion. I still think that's appropriate. TimothyJosephWood 00:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The policy is firm: headers must be neutral. Edit-warring doesn't have to cross the 3RR line to be block-worthy; when you edit-war to enforce the inclusion of a non-neutral header, a quicker block is warranted, and when you already have a recent history of blocks for edit-warring, there's no reason to be lenient for the sake of "this person perhaps didn't know the policy". Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. Both were edit warring. Both hit three reverts on the talk. As pointed out above in the edit conflict, OP was using a deceptive summary to purposefully hide their warring on the article. Both should have gone to talk and actually talked, and OP chose to be obstinate over a minor point to avoid conversation.

Again, sorry, but the "must be neutral" argument fails WP:COMMON in this case. It wasn't a heading calling them a Nazi; it was a heading using their name, and more so, to identify and address an edit. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

OP was using a deceptive summary to purposefully hide their warring on the article

Incorrect (and a ridiculous assumption of bad faith). How exactly can an edit summary hide edit warring? And as explained above, there was no deception. This may be a shocker to you, but every edit displays the change in bytes, and each can be individually inspected. Anyone responsible for policing edit wars can see there were two editors involved in that exchange, regardless of edit summary content.

OP chose to be obstinate over a minor point to avoid conversation

Oh, please. I had addressed each of the editor's concerns on the Talk page and was patiently awaiting a response. Care to amend? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You were not patiently awaiting a response, you were edit warring on the talk as if whether or not your name appeared in a header was a matter of life or death. You should have gone to talk after you reverted the first time. You should have awaited response before edit warring on the talk. You should have not reverted two or three pages worth of edits on a contentious article and then mocked the other editor for "'blanket revert' (whatever that is)" in the most condescending tone possible.

There were indeed two editors involved in that exchange, and that's exactly my point. You need the same treatment the other does, whether its two bans or two people learning to carry on a conversation like adults on the talk. TimothyJosephWood

The warring was between a policy-compliant header and one that was strongly at variance with policy. I'm not about to sanction someone for enforcing policy. Moreover, WP:WIAPA says that unsubstantiated accusations of personal behavior, made without solid evidence, are considered personal attacks. I suggest that you stop with those unsubstantiated accusations against Xenophrenic, because a block isn't far away. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow. So I have offered a dissent, on a subject that I was not involved in until being brought to it through my bored perusing of ANI. I addressed the involved admin per WP:GBU, and (apparently naively) expected the admin to reexamine their decision at least temporarily pending consensus, and instead they have threatened to block me? I don't particularly have a dog in this fight, that was the entire original point of my contribution: to offer a third uninvolved opinion.

The "offender" in this case was banned 41 seconds after being notified that there was an ANI concerning them. I'm sorry, but there's no way you appropriately investigated this situation in that time frame.I understand your permissions outweigh mine, but your opinion in as much as it determines consensus does not. Both users were wrong, both users were edit warring, and some attempt at consensus should be at least attempted when a ban is contested by a third party.

RfC or DR should have been a preface to all of this. You should have recognized a content dispute and directed them there but you didn't. I stand by my accusations of personal behavior and I stand by my suggestion that you should be open to uninvolved discussion of the issue and a stay of your decision pending discussion. TimothyJosephWood 01:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood: Can we ratchet back the hyperbole, misrepresentation and exaggeration, just a little, please? Yes, I was patiently awaiting a response - for exactly 60 minutes. I had responded to Al-Andalusi's concerns, and asked clarifying questions of my own - and I waited. Al-Andalusi gets kudos for initiating the discussion (as the editor with the concerns), after which I refrained from editing the article further. He/she, however, continued to edit the article, while I waited for a response. He/she could find the time to visit the Talk page to repeatedly insert policy-violating headers (which I of course reverted), but he couldn't be bothered to discuss the content concerns - while I waited. You say I shouldn't have "reverted two or three pages worth of edits", and I agree - that's why I didn't. My edits barely amounted to 600 bytes, and I was careful to preserve most of the other editor's edits, while improving some and undoing a couple (when they were not supported by the cited sources). Let me guess, you are going to call that a "blanket revert" (whatever that is)? After searching Talk pages across Wikipedia for the meaning of the term "blanket revert", it is apparent that only one editor has been doing "blanket reverts" during this exchange, and it wasn't me. I understand that you said on the Talk page I'm not going to take the time to read..., but I implore you to find the time to actually examine the edits you are criticizing. And after your "like adults" comment, I'll withhold comment on your accusations about "the most condescending tone possible". It would probably be a good idea to double-check the time stamp on the notification of this ANI discussion, and the block at least 30 minutes later.

Tim, you are correct that it takes two to edit-war, and I'm sure many Admins find it easier to just whack all involved with the same hammer regardless of circumstance. I can't read Nyttend's mind, but I would hope that certain facts worked in my favor: One of us ceased editing the article once discussion started. One of us didn't accuse fellow editors of "activist" editing or allude to racism. One of us didn't edit-war to add policy-violating headers to Talk pages. But yeah, we were both in a content dispute. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict with Xenophrenic] Bear in mind that I've not looked at edits made to the article. I don't care how long has passed between notification and block: all that was needed was a quick check of the page history to find a few diffs, [102][103][104][105][106][107][108]. Those diffs quite obviously aren't a content dispute: it's disruption of the talk page. If you have a history of edit warring, you previously demonstrated your unwillingness to stop disruption, and if now you're edit-warred to force a policy violation to stay on the page, you're demonstrating that you haven't learnt from the past and won't be stopped by words. Nothing wrong if you have a history but have learnt from it, but edit-warring to establish policy violations is highly tendentious. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Imma go ahead and say sleep on it (which is what I intend to do) because half those diffs are just the war between the two users. No hard feelings. See you tomorrow I suppose.TimothyJosephWood 02:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Nyttend:, please review this thread again, and withdraw the "a block isn't far away" threat. It's really inappropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to agree. I agree that admins aren't required to put up with personal attacks just because they are admins, but the threat comes off as a slap in the face of WP:ADMINACCT. Let someone else address Timothy if necessary.--v/r - TP 01:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. If you make unsubstantiated accusations about personal behavior, you are specifically going against the NPA policy. Continue to question my judgement in the block, if you wish, and I'll engage you on it (I disagree, but I have no objections), but the NPA policy demands that we clamp down hard on people who make attacks like yours on Xenophrenic. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think you should take a step back from this thread, you appear to be getting defensive and agitated. Especially since you appear to be confusing me with Timothy.--v/r - TP 01:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry man, but these are two people who don't know how to talk. That's the issue. Eliminating one of them doesn't solve the problem. I'm sorry , a million times, but I really see the disruption on the talk as a continuation of both users trying to avoid 3RR and yet still war. TimothyJosephWood 01:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• As Nyttend stated, OP here was attempting to enforce policy with regard to the talk page header. Few admins are going to sanction an editor for reverting what appears to be a clear violation of that policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break re: Al-Andalusi v. Xenophrenic

(Apologies in advance for length.)

Well, here I am, coffee in hand, so I'll try to say my peace and move on to productivity.

• Xenophrenic made a large reversion, a bad habit on contentious sections of contentious topics.
• They failed to go to talk and explain any rationale, or even what exactly was changed in such a large edit.
• They continued to not talk when they again reverted with no explanation.
• When Al-Andalusi did go to talk, Xenophrenic responded in a way guaranteed to escalate tensions by WP:WIKILAWYERING to prove a WP:POINT that they stood on the moral high ground:
  • Editing out "right wing", and
  • Taking terrible offense at their name being included in the header, not really an attack, both mild at best, and both something most not involved in a content dispute/edit war would ignore, and
  • Otherwise taking a flippant and condescending tone
• Both reached three revisions on the talk, and here we are, where Al-Andalusi was blocked due in part to their block history despite the fact that:
  • Both users were edit warring
  • Xenophrenic was behaving so as to obviously escalate the situation
• And none of this seemed to take into account a longer and more disruptive history by Xenophrenic:
  • Blocked seven times for edit warring and 1R violation
  • Returning to edit war on a page they were previously blocked over
  • Getting a final warning and avoiding a block due to page protection.
  • Another page protection due to warring
  • Another 3RR report that was apparently simply ignored
  • At least one additional stale 3RR report
  • Aaand at this point I'm just going to stop going through the eighty some odd times this user has been involved in notice boards because I think I've made the point.

TL;DR; At the end of the day both editors' behavior and disruptive history leave much to be desired, but the only thing that the current block has accomplished is to hand a victory in a content dispute to one side for nit-picking a policy that wasn't really hurting anything anyway, and being the first to run to ANI about their ostensibly hurt feelings.

Now, having written damned near a treatise on the issue:

• Propose either the ban be undone, both users strongly warned, and the talk mediated by someone (probably not me as I'm fairly involved at this point), or
• Propose WP:BOOMERANG for Xenophrenic for edit warring on both the article and the talk, when the onus was on them as the initial reverter to engage in discussion, as well as a general inability to ignore being called a doo-doo-head. If this is an issue of someone not having learned their lesson, it clearly applies to both editors. TimothyJosephWood 14:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose both the block was within admin discression. The only thing I see going on here is the perpetuation of drama. The initial problem is over, {{unblock}} exists for a reason and the blocked editor can make use of it. Let it be. Jbh^Talk 15:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose both. In this specific instance, the block was justified. There's no room for a boomerang here, as OP was acting within policy to remove the talk page header. Your concern is that there was drama, and perhaps there was - but we didn't block for drama, we blocked for edit warring. And guess what? The edit warring has stopped. A block on Xenophrenic for a situation that is over? That'd be punitive, against policy - and in what way would that block improve the project? No, there's no real justification for it. As for the unblock - to the best of my knowledge, Al-Andalusi is not prevented from editing their own talk page. They can make a request that will be judged on the merits. So no basis for an unblock, either. There's nothing here to do. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems a bit flippant to adopt a stance akin to "When there's an edit war, just block one or the other. Doesn't matter. War's over." Also, WP:TALKNEW is not an exception to 3RR, and per 3RR blocks are appropriate to encourage behavioral change. But apparently I'm the only person who takes issue with it. Oh well. TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

So do you think a block here will change Xeno's behavior or end the edit war more than it has already ended? Be specific - in what way will a block improve the project? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea if it would change their behavior, I should hope so. The user hasn't learned not to edit war, they've just become more savvy at it. They haven't learned to follow policy and guidelines, they've learned to use them to their advantage. The message being sent is loud and clear:

"If you have a content dispute with another editor, don't waste your time trying to resolve it on talk. Instead, try to entice them into an edit war using an obscure barely applicable policy. But make sure your first at ANI, because they might not too deeply into the context or your own history if you're OP. Once they're gone, voila, no one can do anything to you regardless of how you acted, because the edit war is over, and no one seems to understand WP:BLOCKDETERRENT."

"Remember kids, if the spirit of the law were really more important than the letter, they would have written it down."TimothyJosephWood 18:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Both (Non-administrator comment) the Administrator used their discretion. Discretion exists for a reason, the blocking administrator made a choice, one I agree with. The Uncivil comments are probably what lead the blocking administrator to issue the block. And to block the other editor now would violate wikipedia's blocking policy blocks are not punitive but are there to protect the community. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• The long posts by TimothyJosephWood miss the point—the first diff in the OP was this, and that shows one editor misusing an article talk page. It's not the greatest wikicrime, but a talk page section heading should address a content topic, and should not assert as fact that a named editor is doing something bad. Further, an article talk page is not the place to assert that a named editor has used a misleading edit summary or "disingenuously inserted uncited weasel words", or is a right-wing activist. If over-excited and under-informed, someone might post that, but the only reasonable response at ANI is to say that Al-Andalusi's comments were highly inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor continues to upload images as her own work when they are not

I am concerned about editor Andreea9703 (talk · contribs · logs), who has been warned previously ([109],[110],[111]) for uploading copyrighted images as her own. In the past few days she has uploaded File:Hanna.jpg.png (credited from Getty Images [112]), as well as a number of other (but not necessarily copyrighted?) images as her own. I don't know the rules on uploading screenshots and images from Twitter, but at the very least, the licensing is wrong for all of these. They are not her own work. File:Emily.jpg.png (actual source [113]), File:Nik.jpg.png (actual source [114]), File:Riley.jpg.png (source [115]), File:Hhanna.jpg.png (from [116]), File:Johanna.jpg.png (source?), File:Roger.jpg.png (source?), File:RM.jpg.png (source?), File:Freya.jpg.png (source?) . I'm not sure what to do about this, but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention. My apologies if I am in the wrong place. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

All of these copyright violations need to be deleted. Blackmane (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that some of them have been nominated on commons. @Andreea9703: better have a good explanation for this else they should be indefinitely blocked straight away for copyright violations. Blackmane (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't ambiguous licensing grounds for CSD? _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry F9 Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

F3? _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Their content edits have been problematic as well, at least as far back as January. They have already been blocked previously, but sadly it has obviously had no ameliorating effect. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 08:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I tagged their files on Commons as copyviod and npd. I also sent them a last warning for uploading copyvios. Pokéfan95 (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jadcherla

(Moved from AN. BMK (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

I've added content with good and official references. But multiple IPs have ermoved and all have performed the same edit of adding back the previous content which do not have references and most of the content is WP:OR and WP:Unreferenced and also do not satisfy wiki rule of WP:NOTDIR. The differences are, edit1,edit2, edit3, edit4,edit5, edit6, edit7. Each time a different IP was used.--Vin09 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note But not over ten edits and five hours later. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User Talk page vandalism by IP and insufficient protection and blocks

• Widr (talk · contribs)
• 79.74.40.193 (talk · contribs)
• 79.74.58.179 (talk · contribs)

Beginning on April 4 2016[117], an IP has been making personal attacks on my talk page. If I revert them, he puts them up again. My page has been protected here[118], here[119], and here[120] . The IP has been blocked for NPAs on my talk page three times[121]. The third block was for a month but he hopped to another location before that block ended. Administrator Widr blocked today for only three days[122] in spite of the violating IP being blocked for a month right now and having violated the block.

I have asked for indefinite page protection but have been told no and that is why I am here. Blocks and temporary protection have been shown to be worthless and in three days as sure as the sun will rise, the IP will be back. A 3-day block today was a bad joke in light that the IP is currently blocked for a month for the exact same behavior....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ummm... What would you consider an adequate solution? Permanent page protection? A rangeblock? Kleuske (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We do not usually protect user talk pages for anything much longer than a few days but in cases of long term abuse, we may protect for longer periods while creating an unprotected talk subpage so that unconfirmed editors can still communicate with you. You will not get notifications from that page. Drop me a line if you you would like to do this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing on Jesus Christ

It is about [123] where I have been accused of edit warring and of supporting racism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Adasegogisdi has also broken 3RR at Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is true. We have a small group of editors, namely [124] and User:StAnselm blocking the accurate and oldest picture associated with the article Jesus Christ to uphold their white supremacist viewpoint. -Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

When reverting her edits, the WP:FRINGE view is that most Christians would support Jesus Christ the Father, which is a fringe Christian belief and a heresy for mainstream Christians. The WP:OR is using the Bible as source of beliefs expressed in Wikipedia's voice, instead of quoting secondary sources published by Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why is this here? This sounds like a content dispute and you should follow the dispute resolution hierarchy, and please remove the pictures. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, it is here because one editor is calling other editors "white supremacists" and "racists". Is there nothing that can be done to stop this? StAnselm (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed the pictures as they're part of a content dispute which cannot be solved here. Content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages, and bropught to dispute resolution if they cannot be solved there. Admins rule on behavioral problems, not content disputes.

@Tgeorgescu: In your complaint, you failed to mention that you dropped a ton of templated warnings on the talk page of Adasegogisdi. All you received was a standard edit warring notice, and a hand-rolled notice about racism. BMK (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, if I have dropped them in bad faith I should be reprimanded, but if I have rightly issued them I should be commended. I even tried to explain her that the Bible is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Good faith or bad faith, putting a whole bunch of templates on someone's talk page can easily be interpreted as an attack. It would have been better to write a couple of paragraphs outlining the problems as you see them. BMK (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record: I have no preference for either image, what I objected against was expressing a fringe view and indulging in original research. My impression is that each subsequent policy violation deserves a higher order warning template, otherwise why are those templates there? They can be used to convey that an editor has repeatedly violated a certain policy. Wise editors are able to take heed and desist from violating policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because your tool box has a hammer in it doesn't mean you should use it to open the pickle jar. A wiser editor used templates sparingly, and discussion more. BMK (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I can well understand that you might think a warning template or two is a softer response than taking someone to ANI, because it is. Having said that, I see at least seven templates from you on that editor's talk page. If in the future you have to go so far as to issue a second warning template in quick succession, you might also add a bit more relevant text regarding the specific actions in question, and which policies and/or guidelines they violate. And, if you ever feel the need to go to a third template in a short period of time, it would probably be best to take the matter here first, because I tend to think third warnings without any action tend to be much less effective. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good to know for the future. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bible is the primary source. And the Bible scholars they are using are obviously white racists and ignorant of the text. "Isaiah 53:2" and "Jesus has bronze skin". And there are secondary sources available: "UPCI" and "namb.net"-Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm seeing the issue here. In reading the text, an interpretation of one way or another is not "racism". It would be best if you not say that the comments are from racists or white supremacists. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Adasegogisdi for 48 hours for edit warring and breaching WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reading their unblock request I'm wondering if a longer block might be in order. Calling editors "white supremacists" definitely is a personal attack, and reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

People from the middle east are traditionally considered to be Caucasian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

But there is a difference, albeit, maybe, a slight one, between being "Caucasian" and being "white". And I have to agree with Bbb23 that interpreting text should not be a basis for being branded a racist. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually that was me. Bbb23 just did the blocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right - so I skwewed up. FWIW, if you ever have to deal with me in the future, you'll probably get used to my doing that. ;( John Carter (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Different cultures tend to portray Jesus as "one of us". This is no big deal. See Race and appearance of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

True, and hardly a reason to call another editor a racist. We have enough true racism in the world without throwing the claim around indiscriminantly. BMK (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• propose an indefinite block for:
  • their unblock request: White supremacist editors User talk:StAnselm and User talk:Tgeorgescu are upholding their views on Jesus and forbidding debate which followed
  • this warning to StAnselm and the same to Tgeorgescu:Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article. "Atlantic" Discuss on the relevant talk page and
  • this extremely aggressive post here at ANI.

This editor has The Truth^TM and is not here to collaborate with others who think differently; that together with the lack of competence demonstrated by taking an article in Popular Mechanics as The Last Word on how Jesus looked, is a recipe for endless disruption. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) Agreed. WP:CIR issues wrt WP:RS ([125], [126]) along with WP:OR (St. Calixtus catacomb image interpretation), unfounded accusations of racism and white supremacism for those who do not agree. Sufficient grounds for a ban, I would think. Kleuske (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I said that above regarding the unblock request. Immediately calling anyone who differs with you a racist or white supremacist is a tell-tale sign you aren't here for the collective good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block - This is a very new editor who has, I think, maybe taken on more than she should chew too early. I might not oppose some sort of lesser sanction, and would certainly encourage the editor to seek a mentor as per WP:MENTOR, as well as make use of the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it might be a bit early for a site ban, particularly if the editor's primary field of interest is beliefs or groups of a broadly Christian nature which might be comparatively underrepresented here yet. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment to Adasegogisdi you need to find WP:RS with sufficient authority to support your claims. I mention authority here since the subject matter implies there most be many, many RS so we will naturally go with the ones that have the most support (i.e. are widely cited etc). We intentionally limited interpretations of primary sources, so claims like "These scholars are wrong because this primary source says...." are generally not really useful especially with a text as long as and with as complicated a history as the bible. Not to mention if this issue is Jesus Christ rather than "what the bible says about Jesus Christ", the bible is only one source anyway. If you are unable to find sufficiently compelling RS to support your claim, either your intepretation is wrong or it's right but for some reason people have realised yet. Rightly or wrongly, the nature of wikipedia means our articles will mostly stick with the normal view rather than a WP:Fringe view. Nil Einne (talk)

Well, the skin color of the Jesus image was not my problem with her edits, but the patently false claim that most Christian denominations would support Jesus Christ the Father (Patripassianism). Unfortunately, she combined two different claims in one edit, and one of those claims is ridiculous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional support I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, as a newbie who did not know the rules. So, I support the indefinite block only if after her block expires she shows no signs of having learned from the block. As I have argued on Talk:Jesus, I find that she has WP:COMPETENCE problems and that she quite easily casts aspersions, but I am prepared to give her a chance if she shows that she has learned from her block. The gist is: it is not error which deserves indefinite blocking, but persisting in error. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and an indef (as of now) - Way too much, way too soon. Bans are for incorrigible LTAs, not relative newbies. Is this bad behavior? Absolutely, and I'm not questioning that. Still, once the block wears off, then I suggest we give her another chance, as per John Carter and Tgeorgescu. GAB^gab 00:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and indefinite block This a week-old account. Wikipedia has respected editors who acted out when they first started editing the project. And it also didn't help that they also suffered "Death by template" on their user talk page. That blanket templating would anger any editor. I'm in favor of WP:ROPE and I think John Carter has a good point about having a diversity of editors' viewpoints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict on the page Constitution of Medina

I’ve been in an encounter with User: Alexis Ivanov on the page Constitution of Medina in which he shows unacceptable (passive)-aggressive behaviour. Earlier I removed the sentence : “This was the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule” from the article Constitution of Medina. I think that the sentence I removed from the article constitutes a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources as expressed here. The claim is about a matter of history and has been cited verbatim from a source not written by a historian but by two sociologists. More sources were cited calling it the “first constitution ever” but these all omit the word “democracy” and were in my opinion not dispassionate sources as would be required for an exceptional claim. The issue also revolves about the words “constitution” but especially about the word “democracy” After an edit war in which I myself may have been in contravention of 3rr I have engaged in polite discussion with User:CounterTime who challenged my edit but was at least willing to involve in polite conversation about alternative language. As was I. I have since found at least three quotes in which the content of the sentence is contradicted by certified historians. I will quote my earlier message on the talkpage verbatim now:

“CounterTime and Alexis Ivanov, It’s not all that difficult to find reliable sources that mention earlier constitutions and indeed ones that are explicitly associated with democracy. I have a few here and a few here and also here (note especially page 58 among these last ones). I’m not done with the Roman ones yet but would still urge you to consider my most recent proposal.”

User: Alexis Ivanov has responded with more passive aggressive language (also in edit summaries) and more than one revision without waiting for the other party involved, User:CounterTime to weigh in. I think his behaviour is unacceptable versus other users and versus the sources he is now confronted with that flatly contradict the sentence he is determined to return to the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I had NAC-closed this as a content dispute, until I realized that both parties, Hebel and Alexis Ivanov are well past 3RR, and therefore both in danger of being blocked for edit warring. My advice to both of you would be is to stop, before an admin sees fit to block you both, and iron out the dispute on the talk page, or go to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. BMK (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) full-protected the article which is one solution to this problem but not the one I'd have taken. There are actually a half a dozen editors disrupting that article and I'd have blocked them all. My guess is that 90% of the editors that have touched that article in the last 12 months are likely socks or meats.--v/r - TP 00:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I had intended digging into the edit warring and then commenting here but got distracted at work. I semi-protected the article to prevent further disruption but that should not preclude other admins from examining whether the edit warring editors are aware of the 3RR rule and who should or should not be blocked. --regentspark (comment) 13:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Propose 24-hours away from the project for both editors, to allow for the article to be repaired in a sterile environment. That edit-warring takes the biscuit. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:this user holds the opinion that the page should be set to semi-protection with all user accounts attempting to disrupt it be blockedFAMASFREENODE (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User with ironic name vandalizing Macintosh articles

User:TheWordFixer has been editing articles on old Macintosh computers, claiming they can run newer versions of OS X and that they are still manufactured despite the fact Apple discontinued PowerPC-based Macs in 2006.

I have just reverted one of his absurd edits.--76.21.6.165 (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A quick review of his so-called "contributions" indicates TheWordFixer (talk · contribs) is somewhere between troll and incompetent, and should not be editing here. I don't see where he was notified, so I have done so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited for 2 days. I think they've got bored and given up. Mind you, I've seen iMac G3s advertised as "vintage and rare" on eBay and actually sell for what I would assume is obsolete junk these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 82.32.50.222

82.32.50.222 (talk · contribs)

He/she creates very poor subsubstubs. No progress since January.Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Tyrannus was a redirect to Kingbird rewritten without explanation, which created a problem in Tyrannus (disambiguation).Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted Tyrannus, as it was based on one species, Tyrannus huali, for which I can find no evidence. But there is a Yutyrannus huali. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Kittysaurus was and should be a redirect, the editor has just reverted his poor text. Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the revert was done by someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Trachodontoidea, Trachodontinae, Trachodontidae - redirects modernized to subsubstubs.Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I just reverted Podokesaurinae and Podokesauridae back to a redirect, same in Tyrannosaurus bataar by another user. The anon is also removing maintenace templates. WP:CIR? I don't doubt for a moment the anon believes he is helping the project, though. Kleuske (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and disruptive editing by IP

An IP editor who clearly has experience editing Wikipedia (they are familiar with the WP:MOS [127]), has been edit warring over Port Washington, Wisconsin for a couple days, making WP:POINTy edits like this one [128] by adding "former" to every entry in the notable people list, and repeatedly blanking the shared IP template from IP talk pages in violation of WP:REMOVED. Notices to stop edit warring were removed with comment summaries like "obtuse comment by disruptive editor" [129]. They have gone on to edit war at their own talk page over the Shared IP template: 1 [130], 2 [131], 3 [132], 4 [133] 5 [134]. And on and on. The same person has edited with three IPs in the past two days. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Non-admin Comment: @GigglesnortHotel and 32.218.152.198: There is no diff here or edit from this user's contributions that convince me they are vandalising, and you are just as equally to blame for edit warring as the IP editor as you didn't engage in discussion. The POINTy edit you cited strikes me as adding information to an article constructively, correct me if I'm wrong. Edit warring over an IP template of all things instead of dropping it shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on your part. Unless you provide more evidence diffs to show this editor is clearly disruptive, I'd suggest you just forget about this. All I see is a legitimate editor being bitten here. -NottNott|talk Reply with {{re}} 15:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It was not constructively adding information. Please take a few more minutes to review edits before commenting. There was a content dispute regarding whether someone who died over 100 years ago should be referred to as a "former" acting mayor of a town [135], [136]. His response was an obviously WP:POINTy edit, adding "former" to nearly every entry [137]. In any case, WP:REMOVED specifically says that Shared IP templates may not be removed from IP talk pages and he/she repeatedly deleted those with disruptive edit summaries like "obtuse" and "harassment". What began as a simple content disagreement was turned into a full on edit war by the IP, who also makes ALL CAPS edit summaries like these [138], [139]. He's now gone on to abusively restore deleted comments to my own talk page [140]. This is pretty clearly a behavioral problem and not mine. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@GigglesnortHotel: That's a similar but different IP, hence why I didn't see it. In this case we've got:

1. 32.218.37.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2. 32.218.152.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
3. 32.218.47.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

And a third IP I can't find (do add it) involved in the report. With the extra context given, this AN/I seems much more legitimate. As it stands, I could still recommend discussing this with the IP if you haven't done so already - if they are not put off by messages like this by you, you could solve this content dispute. -NottNott|talk Reply with {{re}} 15:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

IP added. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What vandalism do you see in these edits? Or these? I have a dynamic IP created by my ISP (not SNET), which is perfectly legitimate. Why is that a problem? On the other hand, it looks to me like GigglesnortHotel has removed useful information, been uncivil, added unsourced information, edit warred, and harassed another editor. I made one revert to his use of the word "former" to refer to a dead person: [141] and one revert to his removal of information: [142]. Who's the disruptive editor? 32.218.152.198 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism was not mentioned in this report by anyone except you. Why don't you log into your account to edit? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:SM-Mara - whitewashing and legal threats

It's all in the recent history of the article If Americans Knew - SM-Mara (talk · contribs) is making legal threats (the repeated use of the words "potentially defamatory" when the edits in question are no such thing) and is systematically removing all references to the fact that Alison Weir has been criticized for her recommendation of books by Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis such as "Israel Shamir" and Gilad Atzmon. SM-Mara has already been called out for their partiality, which is quite apparent through their edits, and seems to be either Weir herself or one of her minions. Thank you for looking into the matter. --Edelseider (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Saying something is "potentially defamatory" is not a legal threat. It is expressing a concern about our content. Do you have any diffs to other comments you think may be legal threats, or is this what you meant?

No comment on other concerns brought up here. HighInBC 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There may be a COI here that needs to be addressed, but like HighInBC I don't see the legal threat. If someone is removing content about a living person while expressing concerns that it is potentially defamatory, per WP:BLP they should not be reverted unless there is an explicit consensus to include that content. No one should be edit warring to reintroduce potentially BLP-violating content. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Edelseider: You write "You should talk" on SM-Mara's talk page. They did. SM-Mara may have legitimate concerns, after all. COI or no COI. Just saying... Kleuske (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) With all due respect, where I come from, defamation is susceptible to have legal consequences, and rightly so if it is indeed slanderous or libellous (which is not the case here, so this is an abuse of that term anyway). Of course, I see User:HighInBC's point, but one can also see the point of edits like these. --Edelseider (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The term is used a lot by non-lawyers as well. That does not equal a legal threat in my book, though. I suggest you talk. Kleuske (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize in advance for probably not formatting this correctly.

I posted my concerns on the talk page of the article If Americans Knew. Some editors seem to be swarming to get quotations included that amount to extreme criticism of a living person without including any response or refutation.

The first quote in question states that an article by If Americans Knew's founder made unsubstantiated and unsupported claims and argued for false facts without evidence. In fact, a leading expert in the field and others support the facts explored. It seems to me that if this criticism of one of the founders many articles is going to be included, the many countering viewpoints/quotes must be included. This seems to me to be excessive digression in the article, but, either way, I feel it's completely inappropriate to include the criticism without balance.

The second quote is from a marginal writer making extreme accusations against Weir, as well as accusations about other authors, based solely on the source's assertion -- and the edits don't offer any further support of the accusations or any response from or on behalf of those authors. If these types of accusations against both Weir and other authors are going to be included, it seems to me that some kind of response must be included.

These quotes appear potentially defamatory against a living person. (My understanding is that even quoting or republishing potentially defamatory material is potentially defamatory itself.) At the minimum, the spirit of fairness requires that a response or counter viewpoint be given. I don't say that to make some kind of threats, and I think it should be a legitimate topic for discussion.

The person who posted this about me has made several personal accusations to me. It seems to me we should be talking about edits, citations and facts, not making personal accusations. I'm not very experienced, but I'm proud of trying to be very professional in my edits and excited to be learning how to be part of wikipedia. However, the swarming and personal attacks are quite intimidating.

Thanks.SM-Mara (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)SM-Mara (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Edelseider and SM-Mara: Please note that both articles - Alison Weir (activist) and If Americans Knew - are now under arbitration-related sanctions. This means that:

• "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." This applies mainly to SM-Mara, who has under 500 edits.
• "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."
• "This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia's general sanctions: All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

Thank you, GAB^gab 17:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict when I went to post my notice below, but since it was written I posted it anyway. Thanks @GAB for posting the terms in full. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry about pre-empting you there :) GAB^gab 17:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, GAB. Better too many notifications than not enough!  :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• (ec)Arbitration Enforcement applies here. The articles If Americans Knew and Alison Weir (activist) clearly fall within the terms of the ArbCom remedies in the Arab-Israeli] case. I have therefore applied Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement to the talk page of both articles[143][144].

Editors may previously have been unaware of these restrictions, so I do not propose applying sanctions for actions which predate this posting. However, I urge all the editors involved to read the restrictions carefully. I am pinging SM-Mara, Edelseider, Vinsfan368, GeneralizationsAreBad as recent contributors to the articles so that they are aware of the restrictions. (Note that I haven't taken any view on whether they might have breached the restrictions; this is just a notification). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I first got involved in wikipedia when I saw the super unbalanced article on this topic. I was going to complain to wikipedia, but saw that anyone can edit (astonishing concept) and so I thought that was the path to take instead (and I was actually very proud of my edits, which I put a lot of effort to, and thought were well researched and professional, and began trying to get more involved) -- but it seems on this subject matter, my first instinct was correct. What's the process to raise concerns to the editors about articles on this topic, since newcomers like me shouldn't edit them? Posting on the talk pages? That didn't seem to get much response; is there something further to do? Thanks again. (And sorry if this posts twice; thought I'd posted but don't see it.)SM-Mara (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@SM-Mara: posting on the talk page is the best place to start. If you are unable to reach agreement with other editors, then see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for pointers on how to resolve the dispute. Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The person who posted this continues to make critical edits on the relevant pages, Alison Weir and If Americans Knew. Is that appropriate? SM-Mara (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no moratorium on editing the article, but it is recommended to discuss on the talk page rather than revert one another (WP:BRD). GAB^gab 18:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had posted my concern on the talk page, but no response yet and the edit still stands. :( SM-Mara (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jaypeeboyadizas22 removing AfD templates

User:Jaypeeboyadizas22 has continued to remove the AfD template from Swinging the Kundiman despite being reverted by two other editors and receiving a final warning. In addition to this they have also removed notability tags from the page in the past. Opencooper (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding on to this, the user in question has been around since 2010, and has been warned countless times to cease this type of behavior. Some sort of block/ban may be in order here... Vensco (T | C) 00:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have blocked them indefinitely, not infinitely, in hopes of them responding to these and other concerns. It seems that in five years they still haven't learned to properly upload files, begging the question of WP:CIR. This current behavior is just disruptive, and combined with what appear to be fan-driven edits, it suggests that they are not here to improve the project. Jaypeeboyadizas22, when you can explain, on your talk page, that we are wrong about you, that you will make an effort to abide by our policies and guidelines, you can be unblocked. Until then, editors are wasting too much time picking up after you. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Zalooka4 and genres

User:Zalooka4 has been adding unsourced genres to articles based on their personal interpretations, and in many cases marking the edits are minor. This is original research and they have been amply warned against this on their talk page yet continue to do so. Opencooper (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll stop contributing then, block me if you find necessary. Zalooka4 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, one in particular, I'm not seeing much of an issue here. In Opencooper's defense though, genre warring is a very prominent issue at Wikipeida, as they are almost always put in as unsourced and are therefore, not reputable. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Genre warrior and Wikipedia:Verifiability to get an understanding on why this type of behavior is seen as being unconstructive. Vensco (T | C) 00:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Range block of Edit Filter request for 213.205.252.*

I've been tracking edits by a long-term vandal who likes to change dates on cartoon and television pages (see my list here). I requested an edit filter back at the end of March (Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#TV_date_changes_vandalism) but there's been no movement yet. The user has been using the same IP range for a while now Special:Contributions/213.205.252.*. (Sorry, I don't know CIDR well enough so I'm just using the wildcard syntax). This location and behavior matches past IPs. However there seems to be a fair number of IP users in this range who make constructive contributions. Widr has been very prompt in blocking these IPs when I report them to AIV, but there's been an uptick in activity so I thought I'd come here and ask for admin attention. Below is a list of recent IPs, dates, and edits, starting with the first instance of this IP range:

• 213.205.252.111 - 22 March 2016 (1 edit; different ISP)
• 80.249.56.77 - 27 March 2016 (24 edits)
• 151.227.163.140 - 30-31 March through 2 April 2016 (30 edits)
• 94.1.180.104 - 4 April 2016 (8 edits)
• 94.195.178.50 - 4 April + 12 April 2016 (38 edits - resumed after 1 week block)
• 86.135.105.121 - 11-12 April 2016 (3 edits)
• 31.118.196.86 - 17 April 2016 (8 edits)
• 213.205.236.64 - 17 April 2016 (7 edits)
• 213.205.232.64 - 17 April 2016 (8 edits)
• 94.195.176.54 - 27 April 2016 (17 edits)
• 213.205.252.204 - 27 April 2016 (2 edits)
• 213.205.252.109 - 29 April 2016 (2 edits)
• 213.205.252.29 - 7 May 2016 (7 edits)
• 213.205.252.187 - 14 May 2016 (3 edits)
• 213.205.252.106 - 24 May 2016 (6 edits)
• 213.205.252.27 - 30 May 2016 (14 edits)
• 213.205.252.17 - 1 June 2016 (5 edits)
• 213.205.252.35 - 2 June 2016 (2 edits)
• 213.205.252.183 - 2 June 2016 (3 edits)

Is there anything that can be done about this, or should I just keep checking edits using the wildcard and date range restrictions (example)? I understand if admins do not want to block the range due to collateral damage, but I thought there might be something I'm missing so thought I'd ask. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• The way you really want to search that network is using this link [145] which searches 213.205.252.0/24, or 213.205.252.everything. Not sure what the wildcard is really picking up, but you can see the right way shows there is a lot of traffic on that network. I haven't tried to filter through it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: The wildcard does the same if you enable the option in preferences. I restrict the dates to check for new edits. You're correct that there is a lot of traffic from that network which is why I originally asked for the edit filter. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it shows just a little of the traffic if I use the *, which is why I wanted to share. I'm probably a bit more conservative than most, but unless the disturbance is high, I hate to cut off that much traffic. If no one responds, you might try asking at WP:SPI. No, it isn't a sock, but the front page of SPI is where you make requests of CUs, and they have tools that admin don't have and can often tell if the "good" edits are really the same person as the bad edits, making it ok to block the whole Class C. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll post to the Functionaries list and try to draw some checkuser/edit-filter-manager attention to this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It isn't a huge range, but CUs just have better tools to see what the real issue is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Newyorkbrad: Thank you both. Dennis, maybe I'm mistaken about how the wildcard thing works? I really need to learn the CIDR stuff. Appreciate you pointing out the extent of the range. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, range block not possible. This is a mobile range, which makes it hyperdynamic. It's also very large. There are plenty of good edits on the range. I'm very, very hesitant to block large mobile ranges at the best of times, and this one doesn't nearly meet the threshold. Risker (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Risker: Understood. Any chance this could be addressed with an edit filter? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:User000name

I believe that User000name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked indefinitely or otherwise severely sanctioned, and his or her userpage deleted, but because I find myself too angry to appear impartial am bringing the situation here.

I first heard of this user when I saw a post on another editor's talkpage, admonishing that editor for referring to User000name as a "Nazi" in an edit summary. The editor responded that User000name is a Nazi as reflected on his userpage. This led me to take a look at that page, which includes long lists of external links. I was concerned to discover that the largest section of the userpage was (and is) headed "Holocaust Revisionism" and contains dozens of links to Holocaust-denial articles, "documentaries" and videos. In this thread, I asked User000name to explain the purpose of including this material on his userpage. Another administrator added that User000name must remove Youtube links to copyrighted material, which is true enough although in this context I think a secondary consideration. User000name then responded to both of us, ''Purpose of sections "external links" and "Holocaust Revisionism": it is a collection of info, sometimes the sources aren't the best per WP policy so I will not add them anywhere at the (Main) namespace but will keep them on my userpage; is there an issue with that? I'll remove the links."

User000name then removed the Youtube links, replacing them with the word "REDACTED". These included links to sites such as "Auschwitz - Why the Gas Chambers are a Myth", "Buchenwald a Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil", "Zundel vs. Zionist - Truth vs. Lies", "Spielberg's Hoax - The Last Days of the Big Lie", and "Understanding the Holocaust as a Legend". The edit summary was "Removing YouTube links fags asked me to remove".

User000name did not remove any other links, and the "collection of info" on his userpage continued to have a "Holocaust Revisionism" links section including links to "Zyklon-B and the German Delousing Chambers", "The Jewish Gas Chamber Hoax", "Exposing the Holocaust™ Hoax", and "Nazi Gassings" (whose caption is "just another website that denies the Holocaust hoax"), among others. There is also a "Nazism" section of the userpage whose contents are also appalling. I discussed this situation in this thread, asking another administrator whether User000name should be indeffed as a Holocaust-denial troll. User000name then provided the further explanation that "The ['fags'] edit summary meant I disagreed with removing any links to YouTube. Holocaust revisionism links were there because they are sort of interesting."

In a further review, I observed that User000name's userpage, in its own prose (not in a link) uses the term "Holohoax" and elsewhere describes Barack Obama as a "monkey." I asked User000name to explain, and his entire response was, "Along with useful info POVs were also included from text files that were made from text copied from a textboard titled "/newpol/"; more importantly, what is the issue? I could be making useful edits at this website instead of this."

In addressing this situation I tried to be mindful of the fact that Wikipedia embraces a broad range of people and ideologies, and also of the caution passed along by another administrator that sometimes external links may be posted for purposes of studying or identifying problematic human behavior rather than praising such behavior. But even the most lenient version of AGF and widest broadmindedness can only go so far. I pinged User000name to my page, where I told him very directly (in by far the strongest language I've ever used in 10 years on this site—people will be surprised) exactly what I thought of his userpage and, if the page was an accurate reflection of his ideation, of him. He had a clear chance to explain that I was misunderstanding him, if such a response was possible, and dissociate himself from all of those links and comments. He said nothing.

I just spot-checked User000name's contributions for the past 24 hours. His most recent edit was to add a rare spelling variant to the Kike article, which he sourced to Leo Rosten's book The Joys of Yiddish. The book was already cited in the article, but User000name gave it a reference-name; the name he chose was "<ref name="kike.htm">".

Submitted for such action as may be appropriate, hopefully without more drama than necessary. Pinging Doug Weller, Iridescent, Alanyst, and MastCell as they commented in the thread on my talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)