Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
between snow and boomerang
Line 1,395: Line 1,395:


[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 14:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 14:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

:When I have seen [[User:Hijiri88]] using [[Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Ife]] to describe how he dislikes any contradiction about Korean topics, I have been slightly surprised: Ife is a Nigerian town, not a Korean one. When I have seen [[User:Hijiri88]] using my own talk page to lecture me about blocks and so on, I have looked at his own block history and, maybe, I have not been so surprised. The next step seems to be somewhere between snow and a boomerang effect (I am quite sure that this is the right English wording, but I am open to any constructive criticism). [[User:Pldx1|Pldx1]] ([[User talk:Pldx1|talk]]) 19:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


== [[Louise and Charmian Faulkner disappearance]] ==
== [[Louise and Charmian Faulkner disappearance]] ==

Revision as of 19:54, 21 May 2016

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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. (archivessearch)

    Violation of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, nationalist pov-warring, and source misrepresentations

    Ferakp (talk · contribs) has repeatedely violated the 1RR restriction on WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR articles.

    Other problems of this user are that he continues to insert blatant source misrepresentations in wikipedia articles, which damages wikipedia reputation, through his editorializing of anything that doesn't confirm to a nationalist pov, like anything related to women's rights or minority rights of Christians. @GGT: @Attar-Aram syria:@LouisAragon:@GGT:@Shmayo: @عمرو بن كلثوم: Some previous discussions regarding this user: [8] *[9] [10]--80.254.69.43 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

    I see user Ferakp is cited in an edit-warring case above. I would kindly ask the Admins to look at the contributions of Ferakp (talk · contribs) closely. They are removing sourced material because it simply does not conform with his/her political agenda and definition of reliable sources. Please see the Talk page for Rojava for example. Another example for their negative behavior can be witnessed in their reverts of contributions by user @Beshogur:. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told admins many times before, Kurdish articles are 24/7 under attack of Arab, Turkish and Assyrian nationalists. I have had to clean almost from same users. Users Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, عمرو بن كلثوم and two other users which use random IP are clearly black washing Kurdish articles. I have used talk page in all my edits and called users to dsicuss. I have told them about unreliable sources, WP:NPOV violations, cherry picking and WP:ORIGINAL violations. They still don't use talk pages and continuously involve in POV pushing and edit war and violate WP:FAKE, WP:REALIBLE and WP:ORIGINAL. You can talk pages of all articles I have edited and neutralized, I have mentioned and explained my edits word by word, unlike those Arab users here who are not willing to even discuss. Talk pages, [11], [12], [13], [14] and all other edits are mentioned in the talk page of articles. I would like to remind that the users who reported me are clearly violated all those WP:rules I have listed above. Ferakp (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing I would like to add, the user User:عمرو بن كلثوم has clearly involved in black washing, violating 6 times WP:NPOV and WP:REALIABLE despite warnings. The users is copy pasting some statements randomly to different sections. His edits: [15], [16].Ferakp (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, in the absence of any sanctions against him/her, user Ferakp is edit warring again reverting edits in sevral pages. Please look into this. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit clearly shows the purpose and racist agenda of this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain whic part of my message was a racist? Ferakp (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In that edit you are implying that certain editors you disagree with have a certain nationality or ethnicity, and that this nationality or ethnicity is the only reason they are making the edits and wanting to include or exclude certain content. Even if it were true (which you have no way of knowing for certain) it is not a legitimate argument to make for or against article content. You could possible make a case for that argument being used, with care, when concerning sources, but you were not doing that in the cited example. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that "There are at least 21 users in Wikipedia who are cooperating and black washing Kurdish articles. They are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians." I just said that those users are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians. I didn't say anything against their ethnicity or nationality, I said users had those nationalities. I have checked their IP addresses and edits and they really are. Read a little bit what is a racism and then what to here comment. 86.50.110.79 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually find this report quite ironic. There may be reasons to report Ferakp, so far I didn't look very exactly at his edits. But all User:عمرو بن كلثوم is accusing him he is doing himself too. He is a clear POV-pusher against Kurds and the YPG.

    Examples:

    This is not a defense for Ferakp but rather a hint to the double moral standards of User:عمرو بن كلثوم. His arab nationalism is quite obvious and I actually don't know why he hates the Kurds that much, but his POV-pushing is inacceptable in my eyes.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What are you proving here? Every day you annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan. Is Azaz part of Syrian Kurdistan? Is there any neutral source that backs this? By neutral, of course I don't mean Kurdish blogs or "news agencies". The name Rojava itself is a big scam. No self-respecting news agency or international organization uses it. They all refer to the area as Kurdish-controlled area or Kurdish enclaves, or a similar form. It seems there is a pro-Kurdish Canvassing in Kurdish related articles here. Users Ferkp and emranrich continue their edit warring here and are removing sourced information, simply because it goes agains their POV. Here is one example, and I am ready to name several more . Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone here will be blocked, it will be you . Reporter User:عمرو بن كلثوم is clearly an Arab nationalist. He is vandalize Kurdish articles since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerfulman11 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @عمرو بن كلثوم::First of all, I'd be really interested, where I took part in an edit-war in your eyes and where I "annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan" every day.
    What I'm proving here is for example that you claim that the Kurds displaced all Arabs from Tell Rifaat with a source that doesn't even nearly mention such a thing. You can't argue seriously that any kurdish news agency (like Rudaw or ANF) is unreliable only because they are Kurdish. Of course, Azaz is not part of the Rojava administration. But in Germany, to take another example, the Sorbs also don't have any federal state (even if Germany is a federal Republic) or any other administration and still the towns where they live have German as well as Sorbian names: Cottbus is also called Chóśebuz, Bautzen Budyšin, Weißwasser Běła Woda and so on, even if Sorbs only make up 7-12% of the population there.
    Also your view that Rojava doesn't even exist is somehow ridiculous. And I can talk here only about the German press, but the name 'Rojava' is used by almost every newspaper or -agency, when they it writes about events in this area.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ferakp is annoying and act as if he is in a marketplace for sources.. he bargins and his idea about a consensus is him writing on the talk page and think its enough to do whatever he wants .. its specially funny when he decide that something isnt reliable!!! Yet no, he shouldnt be banned.. he has some points about the black washing of kurds, yet he do the opposite and white wash them... all involved users should balance their opinions ... on a side note, ban them for edit warrying for like a day or two so they think twice before doing that again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Attar-Aram syria: How am I annoying? I have seen your edits. You usually see that some edits are clearly blackwashing the article but you skip them intentionally. Last time, I showed you some sources and neutralized sections and I explained my changes. You still wanted to keep the "Kurds" and "Turks" in the genocide section and removed all parts which mentioned Arabs and other ethnic groups. You couldn't explain your changes, as reliable sources clearly proved that Arabs and other ethnic groups have been also a part of the genocide, so there were no reasons to remove Arabs and other ethnic groups from the section. About white washing, just show me one single edit which could be classified as whitewashing. I always use the talk page and explain my edits. Sometimes, I make mistakes, but I admit and fix them. I also apologize. In this case, the user who reported me has involved in POV pushing and violated WP:FAKE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:ORIGINAL dozens of times. I always try to reach consensus. Ferakp (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ADMINS, PLEASE do something here about user Ferakp. Look at this revert that goes against the consensus on the Talk page including user Ermanrich. This has been going on for over a week now, and I have been restraining for edit-warruing with this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @عمرو بن كلثوم: I have explained why I reverted it. You can read it here, [17]. A consensus was reached (me and Ermanrich). Ferakp (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add one thing here. You and Ermanrich should be very careful, at least 4 of your edits violated WP:FAKE and WP:ORIGINAL. Also, you should learn more what is a reliable source and not, WP:RELIABLE.Ferakp (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin @عمرو بن كلثوم:, I don't understand why you don't block Ferakp, when dozens of other users have been blocked for the same offence here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Should not all be pov-warring warriors be treated equally?? --176.127.213.144 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note merged threads of same issue/u8ser (Feerakp) Will add examples of blackwashing later

    Disruptive editor, massive vandalism suspicion, cherry pickings and sock puppetry

    I had previously reported that the some users are black washing Kurdish articles. There is one user who has since last year vandalized and black washed all Kurdish articles. All his edits are clearly anti-Kurdish. Disruptive editings, massive copy pasting the whole section from the article to another and cherry pickings. This user and all his edits are related to the Kurds, FGM among the Kurds and Kurdish human rights. The user is using different IP addresses, so it can continue its sock puppetry and massive vandalism without problems.

    Ip addresses of the user:
    [18]
    [19]
    [20]
    [21]
    and god knows how many other IP addresses this user has used.

    As you can see, I have lost majority of my time to edit, warn and neutralize his edits. All his edits have led me to add POV tags to many Kurdish articles. To be honest, his edits are clearly anti-Kurdish and as you can read talk pages of articles, he/she has edited, full of violations I have mentioned. This user is not only doing such edits, he is also continuously with other users trying to report me so I can stop neutralizing Kurdish articles. I tried to clean his articles, but I gave up after I realized he is copy pasting the whole sections to other articles. For example, he has copy pasted FGM texts from Kurdish women article to Women in Iran article. There are tons of cherry picking, WP:RELIABLE, WP:ORIGINAL, NPOV and WP:FAKE issues in his/her edits. Someone should do something about this.Ferakp (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you provide evidence of the sock puppetry in the form of diffs, Ferakp? The fact that someone edits from different locations is unlikely to be considered evidence of sock puppetry without them. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cordless Larry: They aren't from different locations. All those IPs belong to Bern(Switzerland) and Swisscom (Schweiz) AG. I will also diffs if you want, but I will add them tomorrow, since I don't have much time today.Ferakp (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably they are at least from different computers (or they are dynamic). Using different IPs isn't in itself sock puppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by Hijiri88

    I have gone quite disgusted with the conduct of the above named editor, User:Hijiri88, including most recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Possible wikia site(s) on religious devotions or practices/prayers/calendars/etc.. Records will show that his first recent edits to the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity also included disparaging remarks to the set up of those pages. Also, in recent history, he has made similar grossly irrelevant and counterproductive aspersions regarding my motivations elsewhere. Given his recently demonstrated "refusal to let go" (as one of the closing admins described it) regarding his recent Arbitration clarification and amendment request, now to be found here, and his other recent activity, including as well as his frankly repulsive, repeated requests and comments regarding others impugning their activities, including me at the thread first linked to, at AlbinoFerret in the AE request, etc., and his own violation of the ban there, I think that the time has come to perhaps again review whether this editor is capable of working in this system. I had mentioned in the Arb case that I was definitely of the impression that we were proceeding to the point of a site ban of him, and, although I am not in a position to judge whether these recent events are sufficient (and I myself doubt they are) I think it worth the time and effort of others to try to get through to this individual that, whatever his own tendencies to place absolute credibility in whatever his own opinion at the time indicates to him at any given time, the policies and guidelines of the project, including those guidelines regarding conduct, apply to him, and he violates them at his own risk. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I am unaware if a ban from his user talk page includes notices of discussions of this type, and do not want to risk being blocked, and, on that basis, am not leaving one there, although I have added a link to his page here, which should ping him at least. I would however request that any individual seeing this leave the message, which, under the circumstances, I am not sure I am in a position to do. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering you do have a talk page ban and the discussion which lead to that had a fair amount of support for an i-ban, I'm not sure the wisdom of this ANI, but I guess it's your choice. Nil Einne (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the circumstances, I believe a review of User:Hijiri88's comments on the page first linked to would provide even more support for an i-ban. I think his comments on that page show that he has used it to, basically, do little if anything other than, disparage, cast aspersions, or rush to prejudicial judgment regarding my actions in that matter. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A two way i-ban is basically means that the community has been forced to intervene because two editors have been unable to learn to engage each other in an acceptable manner. It IMO should never be anything someone desires especially at it means your behaviour is going to be under a microscope and you create problems for yourself in the future when your paths happen to cross.
    If you feel an editor is behaving an unresonable manner to you, the best solution is often to ignore it, particularly when it can be ignored such as a case of a random talk page comment (as opposed to a reversion). If it can't be ignored, the best solution is still to respond as positively or at least neutrally as possible. Don't get me wrong, I know from experience how difficult it can be dealing with some who gets your back up, all I'm saying is you are ultimately responsible for your behaviour and you never want to get in to a situation where an iban is called for because it means your behaviour is problematic. (Whether or not the other editor's behaviour is worse.)
    In any case, your initial request said nothing about an i0ban. It requested an evaluation of whether Hijiri88 should be here. The problem is given the history between you two, it's likely upon reading the beginning of this thread the immediate reaction of a number of people is going to be similar to mine: 'oh no, not these two again, I thought we already ibannned them from one another'. In other words, even if there is merit to restrictions on Hijiri88, there's a very good chance it isn't going to happen here because this request is tainted by the fact it's coming from you and given the long animosity between you too. If Hijiri88's problems are really as bad as you suggest and considering they seem to edit in some resonably high profile areas, it seems resonable to assume someone else will notice and bring the issue to the communities attention.
    BTW, looking at the thread you refer to, after a quick read of both your comment and Hijiri88's reply (and the other editors), I actually felt they had a resonable point. Later when I re-read your reply more carefully I noticed you did raise issues which seemed to apply to religions in general but these we IMO not so clear. This may be because your experience is mostly from a Christian or perhaps Judeo-Christian viewpoint. There's nothing wrong with that, but a simpler response Hijiri88's comment would have been something like.
    'I'm sorry but perhaps my response wasn't as clear as I expected. I'm targetting this site at all religions, hence my mention of "religious celebrations of some sort taking place on that day". I'm sure there are other aspects of these religions, including saints for those that have them (even if they don't have dial-a-saint concepts) which could be covered. I'm coming at this from a Christian viewpoint so many of my examples were Christian, but this site isn't supposed to be Christian oriented and should cover other religious texts, practices, traditions and concepts in the same manner. That's why I'm here, to get people who can help me especially fill in the areas where my knowledge is lacking.'
    Actually the response you did leave isn't too bad, if you just cut out the early part. Getting back to what I said earlier, in this case I don't see why you couldn't have just ignored it anyway. If your initial comment was really as clear cut as you felt, people would have read it then read Hijiri's comment and gone what on earth is Hijiri88 on about?
    Ultimately, while I have no desire to look in more detail, all I've seen so far looks to be the same as before: two editors who can't seem to resist sniping at each other to the detriment of wikipedia. While Hijiri88 has IMO made clear cut mistakes before in their dealings with you as I highlighted in the previous thread, in both cases neither of you were that far from each other. So really my question to you is, do you really want to force us to force you two to separate (i.e. an i-ban), or worse (frankly blocking both is always tempting when an i-ban comes up)? Or can't you just ignore wherever possible. And where you can't (mostly in edits to articles), responding as neutrally as possible, seeking help or waiting for others rather than allowing a 2 way fight between the 2 of you two develop?
    Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the Christian orientation is because there are abput 2 dozen articles in a reference work on Christmas relating to Christmas in various locations, and an old, at this point 90 year old, "Biographical Dictionary of the Saints" which runs to about 20,000 entries relating to Christianity. Also, having reviewed some of the reference works which relate to religious holidays, most of those listed are, not surprisingly, Christian, given the number of formal saints and liturgical calendars, presumably. There seem to be few such formal calendars outside of Christianity, from what I've seen, and few reference works which clearly relate to the broad topic of "saints" in non-Christian contexts. Also, there is a problem in at least some of the guru based religions, like ISKCON, with which I have some familiarity, where there might be a brief acknowledgment of a "day" of the guru of the guru of the guru of..., that seems to be the extent of the acknowledgment of such "historical" figures. Basically, it struck me, and still does strike me, that the easiest way to get the guidelines for content set would be by trying to start with the most easily available content, which, given the size of Christianity, also relates to the largest interested body, see what guidelines could be developed regarding national celebrations, etc., and then, maybe, bring in the others to see what if any variations come to mind. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @John Carter: Well, I'm not sure how you'll take this right after my criticism of you on a user talk page we've both recently commented on, but I reviewed the Wikipedia space talk page you linked and I don't see your complaint. You had a suggestion about something unrelated to Wikipedia (which, I'm interested in, by the way) and then Hijiri88 suggested you take it to the Christian wikiproject. I know that the history between you two may come into play, but you followed up on that with "I realize you have an all-but-uncontrollable urge to engage in grossly unproductive commentary directed at me." I'll be honest, you look like the instigator. Except, of course, that with the history of dispute, the sensible and wise thing for Hijiri88 to do would've been to ignore the thread and move on.--v/r - TP 01:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the problems is, of course, that he seemed to insist on me doing what he said I should do, rather than doing the obvious thing and abiding by WP:DOIT. Also, I should point out, that the complaint was not about my taking it to the Christianity noticeboard, which I had in fact done, but about my not taking it to the talk pages of any other religion projects. My reasons for choosing to start with the Christianity project relate to the material I present in my last comment above here. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne has said several times in this and the previous thread that I am making "assumptions" about John Carter's motivations for engaging in the kind behaviour he does. I admit that I have allowed such assumptions to colour my wording at times, but I generally try to give the facts as they are. John Carter's behaviour is indisputably disruptive, regardless of his motivations (User:MjolnirPants will back me up that John's comment on Bart Ehrman's supposed involvement in translation of gnostic gospels was bizarre, off-topic, and, if untrue, possibly defamatory; MjolnirPants can also vouch for my having been editing in the Christianity/Bible topic area for years before my dispute with John started). But at least when I make assumptions, they are in some way supported by the facts; John Carter's assumptions about me, like the one above, make no sense whatsoever and appear to have no relation whatsoever to the facts. I never said anything about John "not taking it to the talk pages of any other religion projects". I very specifically said the opposite: that he should keep discussion of specifically Christian topics to specifically Christian noticeboards, rather than annoying the rest of us with off-topic discussion. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: I know that would have been "the sensible and wise thing" for me to do, and you can ask Drmies for the emails where I told him about how frustrating it was having to do this sensible and wise thing when John Carter follows me to discussions I started and I have to just ignore it. It is extremely difficult to be "polite" (read: pretend there is no problem) when replying to John Carter after he follows me to discussions he wasn't involved in, or (like here) didn't technically join in a discussion I started but created a new thread immediately below my one that already wasn't getting the attention it needed. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem again is that you seem to be reading more into an action then is resonable. It may very well be that John Carter is following you and always joining in to discussions you started. If so this needs to be dealt with. However to assume that your comment there was part of the reason JC decided to post, well that fairly extreme. Baring an admission, it's going to be very very difficult to show even a careful look at the edit history that he's doing that. So raising the possibility is likely to be helpful as it suggests your extremely paranoid/sensitive. Even if you have reason to be so, people are less likely to consider your complaints have merit.

    Considering all that, if JC is following you and always joining discussions you started, perhaps it's somewhat understandable for you to followup to his comments there. But this case is one where you joined in to a discussion he had started based on an extreme assumption. As I said above, I don't find your comment that bad since it's true that the wording of his initially comment strongly suggested a Christian focused project (and one thing I was thinking but didn't mention but has now been mention by TP is that the comment didn't really seem to have much to do with wikipedia anyway). But concerns of JC following you, doesn't seem particularly helpful in the context of a case where you replied to a discussions they had initiated. Particularly since I find it hard to believe they never have a resonable comment in all those times they take part in a discussion initiated by you. (Although I do appreciate JC is asking for a restriction based on wider behaviour and in such a case, considering the wider behaviour from both of you is expected.)

    Note that even if your extreme assumption was true, it's not like your comment was going to make people notice the thread you initiated since realisticly whatever the merits of your comment, John Carter wasn't going to delete his new thread. Actually it probably means people are less likely to notice. Ultimately as I said above, whoever is more at fault it would be better for both of you if you could learn to deal resonably with each other (doesn't mean you have to like or agree) rather than requiring community enforced action. This would likely include ignoring each other as much as possible, the one who is better at ignoring the other is likely to come across better (obviously other factors will affect the overall impression).

    Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne: Actually, if you read his comment very closely, he actually agreed with me on the substance, but seemed to be really stretching to find something to disagree with me on. This implies that he was not actually there to respond in good faith. Also, I never said that I think John Carter opened his somewhat spammy thread on WT:RELIGION in order to distract from my thread immediately above. I said that the reason I noticed his somewhat spammy thread was because it was posted immediately below my thread that wasn't receiving any attention, rather than (as John Carter keeps claiming) because I am "stalking" his edits. Yes, I do keep track of his edits, but this is because he keeps posting on random admins' user talk pages and noticeboards like this one and requesting that I be blocked, without notifying me. In this case I was pinged, but in all of the other cases I would not be able to defend myself against his accusations without keeping track of his edits. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC) (updated 06:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    One wonders just how many of these threads I am alleged to follow him on relate to the topics I deal with, which are largely religious, and whether Hijiri88's self-involved viewpoint ignores the possibility that I take part in most of those discussions. I believe the full evidence indicates the latter, rather than the former. A distorted view of things from someone with a clear bias is not, in and of itself, ircontrovertible evidence. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pot kettle black. John Carter is the one making accusations that I am "following" him with no evidence. I am (thanks in no small part to John Carter's efforts) technically not allowed post all the evidence of John Carter following me over the past year on-wiki. Again, if anyone wants the information, I would be happy to email it to you, and to authorize you to post it on-wiki as something I wrote. Unlike John Carter, I have nothing to hide. His claiming that I am "biased" and "involved" in claiming that he has been following me but that he is somehow not biased or involved in claiming that I am following him is clearly disruptive, especially when I have already posted incontrovertible evidence that his repeated claims that I am only editing Biblical/Christian topics to harass him are false and made in bad faith. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And also see the completely out of the blue comment by Hijiri88 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#In the news: Whitewashing in Providence (religious movement), which to my eyes is rather clear evidence of Hijiri88's own stalking. And, certainly, considering that there was no obvious reason for him to comment there other than it being a thread in which I was involved, I think it a possibly clearer case of stalking than any of those he has alleged but provided no evidence for. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    John Carter has almost no history of editing in Korean topics, while I do. ANI is one of the most, if not the most, active page in the Wikipedia namespace, and I have posted in dozens of threads in which I was not directly involved. At the time I posted, the thread was also immediately below a thread I started. Calling my comment "out of the blue" is ridiculous, and implying I followed John Carter there cannot be defended as a good-faith mistake, as I clearly explained that the reason I was posting was to inform the OP that their pinging User:Shii would not do much good as Shii appears to have dropped off the face of the earth. John Carter should be blocked for these continued outrageous insinuations that I am following him. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me to call the above, unsubstantiated, assertion ridiculous and very possibly indicative of a pathologicial mindset. If he is referring to my making comments at the now archived ArbCom Request for Amendment page, it seems to me that, as I was one of the parties to the case which was being discussed, I should have been notified of the discussion, which I was not. When one can, reasonably, see that another individual is, perhaps, acting contrary to basic conduct guidelines in trying to prevent input from others involved, it is not unreasonable to wonder just how widespread such behavior might be. And it is worth noting once again that Hijiri seems to be engaging in his repeated request that he be allowed to present his evidence by e-mail, which, of course, does not allow for an option of response. Hijiri — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talkcontribs)
    John Carter, stop hiding your posts behind random collapse templates, and start signing and dating your own posts. I can't find the diff of you making the above edit, but I can tell it's you because in my eleven years of editing Wikipedia no one has called me "pathological" (or "insane" or "paranoid") except you, and you do so at least once every few weeks. I am not requesting that I be allowed present any evidence via email; I am requesting that you be sanctioned for refusing to provide any evidence of me being an "insane", "paranoid", "pathological" "stalker" despite not being under any restriction that prevents you from doing so, and saying up front that I will provide as much evidence on-wiki as I am allowed, and any contextual explanation that is requested but that I don't think I would be allowed provide per the terms of any ArbCom decisions I would be happy to send by email. I have already posted ample evidence on-wiki of your following me, lying about me, trying to wikilawyer me into a block, vote-stacking, trying to get around the requirement that you inform me of any requests you are making to (members of) the admin corps that I be blocked... Anything sent by email would merely be a supplement. And, as I have already stated in this thread, I would readily grant permission for the recipients of these emails to post their entire, unaltered text on-wiki, as (seemingly unlike you) I am not trying to hide anything. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I can be wordy. Sorry. John Carter is the one following my edits. Email me if you want the full story. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • John Carter has been closely following my edits for over a year, and engaging in off-wiki contact with other users he considers to be my "enemies" for about as long. I don't want to go into the whole history (I was recently told in an email exchange with User:Callanecc that giving all the details on-wiki would potentially violate one or both of my TBANs), but I would be happy to provide them on request, by email if necessary. John Carter recently followed very closely on my tail to four different separate forums, and in two of them ironically accused me of following him. He has also repeatedly accused me of "following" him to the general area of Christian/Biblical topics, even though those are subjects I have a serious interest in off-wiki and have demonstrated such on-wiki countless times. I am really sick of dealing with John Carter's harassment, and I frankly don't want to go back and search for all the diffs at this time, but if anyone doubts anything I have written I would be happy to retrieve the evidence.
    I would be very happy with a two-way IBAN -- I requested it several times, most recently a month ago, but if John Carter honestly believes that my "behaviour" (read: continuing to edit an area I have been active in for at least three years) constitutes hounding, then I worry he might continue to accuse me of hounding him even after an IBAN is imposed.
    Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: Mjroots explicitly told John Carter that he was not only permitted but "required" to inform me of ANI discussions like this one. His above claiming after this explicit clarification was posted on his talk page that he is "unaware if a ban from his user talk page includes notices of discussions of this type" is difficult to believe. This, combined with his distinct history of reporting possible violations on my part on admin user talk pages (implicit block requests) rather than AN or ANI and not informing me, is difficult to take in good faith. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, only e-mail him if you want a clearly biased version of the "story," which seems to be primarily based on the assumption that checking a watchlist and responding to changes made that appear in them is "stalking." John Carter (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that John Carter not following the clearcut wording of the talk page ban which allowed such notifications doesn't reflect well on them. But again, I would suggest reading more in to it than simply not properly reading the wording of the ban properly, or not remembering what was read and checking it again before coming here, is simply not helpful. It's obviously possible that JC intentionally did it to annoy you, but since it'll be again impossible to prove and should be a once-off it's not something that can go further. Even if you may find it infuriating, it's irrelevant to the outcome and it's accepted that some people don't notify when there is genuine question over whether they're allowed and JC did make it clear they hadn't notified. Note that although it looks like no one informed you (I didn't notice that part very well) I guess either the ping worked or you became aware of this discussion somehow else. There's almost zero chance anything would have happened without you becoming aware of this discussion.

    The comment you made about JC going directly to admins is more concerning however the examples cited seem to be about violations of topic bans rather than behavioural concerns which require wider ANI input and AFAIK for better or worse there's no explicit requirement for notification in such cases where ANI/AN isn't involved. I would hope any decent admin would ask for input or take it elsewhere where they feel it's needed, but topic ban violation block are something that intented to be something low fuss.

    Personally I think the bigger concern is whether they show some degree of stalking, a big issue here would be how many of these reports lead to a block. I don't think it's the best idea for an editor with a history of antagonism with the reported to be frequently reporting topic ban violation, but if these reports all have merit it's difficult to say they were wrong. But if they are making these reports and a lot of them are wrong, it may very well be time to tell them to stop.

    Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne:It is worth noting that in the Request for Clarification and Amendment Hijiri started there were, if I remember correctly, indications that others thought the request was not acceptable conduct from his side, which, honestly, I had never seen the like of before. That being the case, I thought it reasonable to act on the side of caution. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Despite John Carter's repeated attempts at wikilawyering me into a TBAN block, I have not been blocked for any TBAN violations I may or may not have made. One of them (the recent ARCA) was a clear-cut misunderstanding as Callanecc can attest to per our email exchange, which is why I wasn't blocked and immediately withdrew it when told I probably should. A few more of them (my replies to Curly Turkey on my talk page) were the opposite of a TBAN violation, as they consisted of me saying "I'm sorry -- I don't think doing what you're asking of me would be acceptable under the terms of my TBAN". Another of them (the AE report) was initially a clear-cut case of BANEX as I was asking for clarification of my own TBAN, and an admin short-sightedly encouraged me to post an AE report; several others said I should be blocked for the AE report, but then when this background was clarified they withdrew these statements. John Carter also once (quite some time ago) interpreted the wording of another user's TBAN to make it sound like it applied to me, and recently misquoted the wording of my current TBAN with the effect of making it sound like it covered something ("Chinese topics") that I have edited numerous times since December (as Sturmgewehr88 pointed out, given the history it's difficult to take this as a good faith mistake). None of these attempts by John Carter have led to blocks, despite numerous admins (several of them Arbitrators) weighing in. This recurring pattern is very frustrating for me, as I would much rather improve Wikipedia's coverage of the various topics from which I am not banned than spend all this time defending myself against bad-faith accusations that I violated some sort of ArbCom ban. It's also worth noting that John Carter's above saying "if I remember correctly" and talking about "others" agreeing with him for something that happened only a few days ago, without even providing a link, is very misleading (whether it was meant to be misleading is another matter). The claims that User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Kingsindian (the two users whom John Carter says are "from [Hijiri88's] side") thought my request was "not acceptable conduct" is a complete misrepresentation of what they wrote. The actual posts are here, here and here. The fact that John Carter misquoted these people and weaselish-ly defended this misrepresentation as being "if he remembers correctly", while I have given the exact diffs, should be proof enough that I am not the one trying to hide evidence. The only reason I am only posting most of the recent evidence, as opposed to all of the evidence, in this thread is because providing the necessary context for mny of those earlier diffs (and some of the recent ones) would violate my IBAN and one or both of my TBANs. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I was pinged since I had commented on the ARCA request. I only read the first post relatively carefully by John Carter and I see no evidence presented for any stalking. That said, Hijiri seems to not mind a mutual I-ban, so if both agree, that is fine. Kingsindian   05:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was pinged by Hijiri88, who said I could back him or her up on certain things. In fact, I cannot back them up on their editing history, as I am not familiar enough with it to state with any certainty whether they were editing years before some disagreement I am also not familiar with started. However, their editing history should make that apparent, if it is true. With respect to the claim John Carter made about Ehrman being involved in the translation of the Gospel of Judas: Yes, I can back Hijiri88 up on that. Carter commented that "If I remember correctly, there is and has been reasonable somewhat widespread criticism of his work on the early version of the Gospel of Judas translation..." Not only is this factually inaccurate on the surface, it makes factually inaccurate assumptions about Ehrman's participation in the project. In that context, it is an extremely bizarre thing for someone who should be at least passingly familiar with the subject of New Testament history to say.
    Also, I read the first link John Carter provided, and while I think Hijiri88 might have shown poor judgement in responding in the first place, what came out was a legitimate concern, to which Carter responded by failing to assume good faith and casting serious aspersions on Hijiri88. The implication of stalking there, in fact, more closely resembles Carter's behavior at the FTN thread Hijiri88, John Carter and I participated in.
    There may be more there that I am unaware of, but what I've seen so far causes me to lean towards taking a closer look at why this notice was filed. I'm not advocating for any outcome, mind, just airing my 2 cents. Also, please don't ping me any more unless there are specific questions to ask me. My general thoughts on this have all be aired above, and I really don't want to do the editing history and block log research necessary to come to a more considered, informed opinion on this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction Hijiri88 reminded me (for the second time) that we had interacted about two years ago in respect to some rather academic issues regarding biblical history. Therefore, I can vouch for this editor having been participating in such work for that period of time. It's also worth noting that I would tentatively vouch for Hijiri88's competence to work in this area: most of us make mistakes and have some false beliefs, including myself, but I've yet to see this editor say anything which I could find to be factually wrong. I cannot speak for any civility issues beyond what I've said above, though I believe I made myself clear, there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding since I was pinged and John Carter really needs to drop the stick already. As in every interaction between them, John Carter stalks, character-bashes, casts aspersions, wikilawyers a way to get someone blocked, and/or lies about the reality of the situation. Oh and that "I'm gonna complain about something not happening and then scold you for not making it happen" thing he's pulled before. He's always talking about these reference projects he's cooking up, so maybe he should go work on those instead of getting into fights with Hijiri. Or an IBAN could be placed, since both would agree to it; that works too. I'd still be amicable to an IBAN between myself and John Carter. Anyway, that's my 2¢. If John Carter tries to deny anything I said, I'll be happy to bury him in diffs (or maybe Hijiri will beat me to it). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not seeing a single diff in the OP or even in the sea of words that is this thread. Therefore I'd be happy if the OP received a boomerang for time-wasting and for stirring a pot he knows shouldn't be stirred. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: You are right that the OP hasn't provided diffs; as I have stated a few times in this thread, he appears to be trying to convince the admin corps and/or community of my wrongdoing without showing evidence that would backfire on him. But I don't know how it happened that you didn't notice the diffs I provided. I gave at least 15 diffs (and six archive links -- evidence does not have to be given in the form of diffs) in the collapsed sections above. I even made an edit that consisted almost exclusively of adding diffs and archive links to my own earlier post. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri 88, I'm talking about the OP, not you, and sections are collapsed for a reason. But if you want to start/continue whining as well, I'm happy to suggest that all two or three of you receive feuding blocks from Floquenbeam, who is well-disposed to handing them out, and would be perfectly within his rights to do so here I think after all the ANI time this silly feuding has taken up over the months and years. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to where you said "in the sea of words that is this thread", but I appreciate that you were mainly criticizing the OP. Your noticing the OP's lack of diffs is recognized, and appreciated. I frankly don't want any more to do with this thread (I've been sick of ANI for quite some time) and would be content if it closed right now with the OP getting a slap on the wrist and being told to stay out of my hair going forward. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone is trying to name me.

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

    More edits from the User's meatpuppets trying to guess who I am. [22] [23] It is very obvious who is using that IP if you look at the history of my talk page [24] This sort of personal Harassment should not be allowed. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you self-identify as User:YuHuw (see [25]), 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".[26]
    • You describe other editors as "a team of meatpuppet sycophants hovering around him rather like the way flies hang around a dung-heap".[27]
    Suggest block as WP:NOT HERE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Isn't he called Vaz as well? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    <personal attack redacted> 94.119.64.42 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 (やや) 08:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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 (やや) 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 (やや) 11:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You were cleared by the sock-puppet investigation. So drop the stick.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more 'Not Proven.' Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 04:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Edit war on Jonathan Mann page escalated to personal attacks

    IP 129.67.16.1 (talk) added a notability tag to the Jonathan Mann page, and when I added additional information and removed the tag, they reverted me twice without any edit summary or discussion. They also removed my message on their talk page asking for discussion, and twice removed Jonathan Mann from a disambiguation page, again without any explanation or discussion. Now they have left a hateful message on my talk page, and reverted me again, without an edit summary or discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    He's been issued a one-month block. They can't indef IP's, but that one's pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots08:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for catching this while I was out, folks. (BTW I'm a "they," not a "he.") I figured the IP that added the notability tag this morning (PDT) might be a sock, but I had to go out and someone had already reverted, so I didn't report them. (And now I see that was actually a different IP from the one who later vandalized my page.) In any case, yes, if I can request semi-protection of my user and talk page here, I would like to do so. Funcrunch (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another IP just re-added the notability tag and trolled my talk page, in rapid succession. Funcrunch (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Since my user page was just vandalized again and I haven't seen any formal response from an admin on this incident report, I've submitted a request for page protection. Funcrunch (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My user page has been semi-protected, but the harassment has continued on my talk page, and has escalated to deadnaming. (That user has been temporarily blocked.) I'm not sure what other options I have to thwart these attacks at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks and outing attempts by an IP editor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfeise#Who_is_Jfeise This is most likely the same person as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfeise#comments_on_Victoria_Switzerland jfeise (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In relation to WP:NLT threats in several sections of User talk:Jfeise, I indef'ed User:Msselnamaki and gave User:156.196.81.11 a 1-week block. Msselnamaki has a self-declared[28] COI for the article in question (Victoria University, Switzerland), adding extra credibility/directness to his threats, rathar than any chance of being read as a "be careful, someone might get upset" third-party warning. DMacks (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Likely the same person vandalizing my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/105.182.184.234 jfeise (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he seems to have switched from his broadband to his mobile. Blocked for one week a la that for User:156.196.81.11. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    An OS worked some magic on one of the edits as well (feel free to ask if others need deeper burial). Undoing NAC, as I need to update after that time and not sure the problem is actually solved yet. DMacks (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I also semi'ed Victoria University, Switzerland 1 week. This is not the first flare-up of IP disruption there. DMacks (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another related IP edit on my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jfeise&diff=prev&oldid=720370029 jfeise (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked IP 156.196.138.6 for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked User:105.39.65.226 per NLT on my userpage,[29] presumably part of the same sockfest. DMacks (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced changes made by 73.133.140.233

    This is the last [30] edit of a series of unsourced changes made by 73.133.140.233 (talk · contribs). IP had enough warnings regarding the introduction of unsourced material, yet they keep making unreferenced changes along a number of airline crash articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm thinking maybe the IP isn't aware they have a talkpage, and so hasn't seen the warnings. I've blocked for 31 hours to get their attention and help them find their talkpage. If they reply there in a constructive way, please unblock, any admin who sees it. Thanks for reporting, Jetstreamer. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you Bishonen. I'll let you know if the IP replies at their talk.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Every IP editor sees an orange bar across the screen the first time they access the site after the message has been posted. It includes a link for accessing the message (i.e. clicking on it takes them to the talk page whether or not they know of its existence). The system is very efficient - I sometimes receive notification of messages posted nine years ago when nobody has edited in the interim. 78.145.24.30 (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive Editing

    User "The Quixotic Potato" engaged in an inappropriate, off-topic discussion in a reference desk thread..I asked about how to collapse it in the reference desk talk page...He then filled that thread with disruptive editing. I then collapsed the discussion after learning how, whereby he reverted it in bad faith multiple times...I then asked for help in dealing with him in the reference desk talk page...he then filled that thread up with even more disruptive editing...the collapse isn't itself that big of a deal but his apparent belief that he can do whatever he wants is more important in regards to the Wikipedia project...thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=history68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:STICK & WP:BOOMERANG. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    not relevant..the admins can look at the record...and it's all right there for them to see..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're trying to collapse is NOT "off-topic". The original poster in that section made some statements about what he thinks "God" is. That opens the discussion to anything about what "God" might be. If anything should be collapsed, it's the entire section. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots18:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    that's simply untrue..the section I'm collapsing is no way directly related to the original question and is insulting back and forth about individual religious beliefs...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The original question is also insulting to religious beliefs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots19:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Refdesks should handle philosophy, and while normally this sort of question would fall under the category of Humanities, the OP thought it was a scientific question because he didn't really think through the hypothesis he/she was making and whether the proposed experiment was a suitable test of it. I don't think we should put topics out of bounds just because people disagree on them. Quixotic Potato has some odd ways of editing, but I haven't noticed anything requiring administrator intervention. Any issue about hatting the thread can be handled by local talk page consensus if necessary. Eventually everyone will either calm down or someone will go over a bright line, but for now there's no need for admins to get involved. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP here originally brought it up on the ref desk talk page and was told to bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't planning on commenting here again but Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked 151.226.217.27 because it is LTA User:Vote (X) for Change, which confirms my suspicions. 68.48.241.158 will be blocked again soon, probably for being disruptive and exhausting everyone's patience. I don't know if they are the same person. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    nope, not same person, obviously..but that's who you engaged inappropriately with in that thread (and which I properly tried to collapse) whereby you again and again and again in bad faith uncollapsed...68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:INDENT. It doesn't really matter if you are the same person as 151.226.217.27 or not, the end result is the same. If you continue behaving like this you will keep getting blocked. It is 6 AM right now in the place your IP geolocates to. Are you in Michigan? Are you using a proxy? 151.226.217.27 is from the UK, and the people in the UK are awake already. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as the thread itself, an admin went in and removed one half of the inappropriate back and forth...so now just "quixotic potato's" inappropriate words remain, as though he's talking to himelf...but, again, this is about "quixotic potato's" continued disruptive editing when I originally tried to deal with the problem..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If it wasn't so boring I would check when you are active, and look at the time in the location your IP geolocates to. The Rambling Man already pointed out to you that my name is "The Quixotic Potato". Just like A Tribe Called Quest and A Pimp Named Slickback. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be using the correct ENGVAR and you've claimed you went to the university of Michigan so you probably woke up really early. You've pissed quite a few people off in your short wikicareer. 5.150.93.133 has been blocked as well btw. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand you're grasping at straws and trying really, really hard to change the subject to try to distract away from what this is about, which is your inappropriate behavior (so in that sense it's just more inappropriate behavior and continued evidence of a bad Wikipedia attitude)..If you go reinstate the collapse and post a quick "my bad" in the talk then this thread can be ended..this will suggest you understand the inappropriateness of some of your "odd ways of editing" (which was another editor's generous way of referring to your inappropriate editing behavior)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahahaha. That is the second time you made me laugh out loud. Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments states ...these templates [collapsing discussion] should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. If this applies to the Science refdesk, then IMHO the IP and TQP are as guilty as each other. Having said this, such behaviour does not require admin action - but perhaps a case of "toss 'em a trout". DrChrissy (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    note: I wasn't an involved party to the inappropriate/off-topic tangent the two editors went on..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim of it being "off-topic" is false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    that's just a ridiculous claim..not only was it off-topic (as Wnt basically agreed in the talk page) but it was INAPPROPRIATE too (ad hominem attacks/tanuts etc etc)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your claim that is ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    is there any logic to rationale to your belief? do you simply think ad hominem attacks/taunts are appropriate?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, you are great at making friends. Wnt is (obviously) not on your side, no one is. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    note: the quote posted by DrChrissy doesn't mention anything about being involved in tangents (off- or ontopic). You were involved in that thread. I don't think trouting you would be useful, and I don't care if you get blocked now, because your behavior clearly shows a pattern that will get you blocked over and over again unless you drastically change your behavior. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    repeating again and again that you hope I be blocked one day in the future is off-topic in itself and is disruptive to this discussion..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what the word disruptive means? Maybe you do not want to hear my advice, but I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE: the only remedy I really desire is that a good-faith admin caution "Quixotic Potato" on his talk page to try to stay on topic in reference desk discussions, to avoid ad hominem attacks/taunts etc in reference desk discussions, and to not disruptively revert edits in bad faith ways by other editors who are trying to mitigate the damage (ie collapsing the inappropriate discussion)..thank you for your time.68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, for the third time, it's "The Quixotic Potato". Do you have a problem with my username? Administrators are unlikely to do what you tell them to do; they are experienced Wikipedia users and they are working to protect people like me against people like Vote (X) for Change and yourself. Remember when you posted on clpo13's talkpage and clpo13 ignored you? We are trying to make an encyclopedia, and your disruptive behavior and your refusal to drop your stick is not helpful. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, he believed this was worthy of being in ANI and apparently stuck to that belief..again, this is about specific behavior of yours (which is in the record to be looked at)..your repeated nervous attempts to change the subject are not relevant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nervous". Hahahaha. That is the third time you made me laugh out loud. Thanks again. Clpo13 is also not on your side, no one is, but it is true that this deserves to be on ANI because that makes it easier to demonstrate the pattern in your behavior in the future. Everything is accessible in the page history, even the removed posts by that banned user, that is the reason why no one is on your side. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, everything is in the record to be looked at...my hope is a good-faith admin or two will be along to do just that..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I predict that you will claim that any admin who disagrees with you is not a "good-faith admin". In reality everyone who has disagreed with you on Wikipedia is good-faithed afaik, but people simply get sick and tired of your behavior, and I can't blame 'em. That is why your talkpage is full of complaints, block notifications and declined unblock requests. Like I said many times before, I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. Drop your stick, stop harassing people, stop insulting people, stop wasting peoples time and stop being disruptive. If you can't do that then you are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see another attempt to change the topic of this discussion (don't worry, I'll keep seeing them if you want to keep repeating yourself, as I'm watching this of course)...interestingly, you haven't once yet addressed what this is about, which makes sense as it's indefensible...an Admin will hopefully be along..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did link to WP:BOOMERANG, so you can't say you haven't been warned. Quote: "There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report." I don't think you will be blocked based on this ANI discussion, but I am pretty sure that your history will be brought up the next time you behave like this, and it is quite easy to see the pattern. You keep making new enemies, and at some point people will have had enough. BTW, The Rambling Man is an admin, and The Rambling Man told you that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    boomerang just not relevant here..all of this was entirely necessitated by you simply not allowing the proper collapse in the first place...and then another editor ending the discussion on the relevant talk page due to believing it belonged here...I don't particularly make "friends" or "enemies" here as I don't view it as a social networking site...I do insist policy be consistently implemented..which, unfortunately, has caused some bother for certain people..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoohoooo! You learned how to indent correctly. Thank you. You don't particularly make friends here, that is true. You obviously do not understand the policies and guidelines and unwritten rules here, I cannot blame you for that because that would take you a very long time, but luckily people like you are unable to pass an RFA so you don't have to understand many of them. Here are some quotes from stuff I wrote earlier: Go do something useful, write an article. You can see my todo-list here: User:The_Quixotic_Potato/todo. If you write a decent article about Thierry Legault I will give you a barnstar. The French Wikipedia has an article about Thierry Legault. If you want me to I can give you some sources you can base the article on. If you do not want to write an article then maybe you can help me fix some typos? Click here for a list of possible typos. Write an article about Thierry Legault, or fix some typos, or do something else that is useful. I have already sent you a link to WP:STICK. My offer still stands, if you write a decent article about Thierry Legault then I will give you a barnstar. He is a very interesting guy, he is notable, and this could be your first barnstar ever. Are you going to write an article? Are you going to improve existing articles? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the person who keeps putting irrelevant content into this thread (and having it reverted) the same person "Quixotic Potato" engaged with inappropriately (and which I properly attempted to collapse but was disrupted in my attempt by the continued inappropriate behavior of "Quixotic Potato"??).68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You know that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". According to WP:DUCK you are a troll, just like your banned "friend". I am going to stop interacting with you (except maybe to mock you), because that is what Professor Elemental told me to do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    my friend? the person who was one half of the inappropriate conversation I tried to collapse (the other half being you)..excellent logic..notice his half has been properly removed whereas your against policy and silly posts remain for all to see...(anyway, it's clear to me you get the message...there may not be enough admins with enough time to deal with you right now)68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Request Boomerang/Indef Ban IP editor clearly is not here to contribute to Wikipedia, only waste time, of which they have already accomplished that goal. --Tarage (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    my hundreds upon hundreds of beneficial contributions can be looked at...my collapsing of the off-topic and totally inappropriate discussion between two editors in the reference desk thread was one of these beneficial contributions..."Quixotic Potato's" disruptive behavior after I did this (which eventually necessitated this thread here) on the other hand..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you keep using quotes around his name and keep getting his name wrong is proof positive that you are not here to be civil or contribute, you are simply here to waste time. Go away before you are forced to go away. --Tarage (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    the fact that he insists again and again in a silly manner that I include "The" is more demonstration of his childish/inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia...what's wrong with using quotes when referring to a username? I'm still awaiting an Admin...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins have talked to you already if you cared to pay attention. This will not end well for you. That you lack even the proper respect to call someone the way they want to be called is proof of your own childishness, but you refuse to see that. I'm sure your attacks will soon turn my direction, but that's fine. You've been given enough rope. --Tarage (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    never once have I ever attacked anyone on Wikipedia...who is an admin that has addressed this? (Have you bothered to look into what this thread is actually about or have you only read the mostly irrelevant content contained within this thread?)68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    68.48.241.158 did attack (at least) one person, and administrator Coffee addressed this (by blocking 68.48.241.158).
    21:36, 1 March 2016 Coffee (talk | contribs) blocked 68.48.241.158 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment)
    68.48.241.158 will probably claim that Coffee is not a "good-faith admin". Tarage has been a Wikipedia user for over a decade and has a clean blocklog. It seems to be really difficult for 68.48.241.158 to find a "good-faith admin" (despite the fact that someone sent him this link which lists hundreds of them) so it is not clear how Tarage managed to avoid getting blocked all this time.</sarcasm>
    The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    the reasoning for that improper block was supposed "failure to get the point" in a talk page content discussion...ad admin then incorrectly listed it as "personal attack"...I immediately objected to the block and the incorrect stated reason (as can be seen) but it was not addressed...but, again, this hasabsolutely nothing to do with what this thread is about...this thread is about your specific conduct (which actually included personally attacking another user...which can all objectively be seen right in the record)..you haven't once addressed what this is about (which is understandable, as you have no defense) but disruptively changed the subject again and again (which is also inappropriate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone you have interacted with on Wikipedia is wrong and you are right. The fact that the vast majority of your interactions with other people are less than pleasant is our fault. All admins are acting in bad faith. We should all be blocked, except you of course, so that you can edit Wikipedia in peace. We are all crazy, and we are simply not smart enough to understand you. Are you aware that MediaWiki is totally free? You can install it on your own webserver, that way you won't have to deal with idiots like me. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please Note: I was originally seeking some real-time help in dealing with inappropriate content in a reference desk thread (and a user's inappropriate interference with my dealing with it); so this has become moot as that thread is receding into the history in the reference desk...that same user has now filled this thread up with a wall of content that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread (and not once addressed the matter), which is also totally inappropriate...the only thing to potentially do is have an admin admonish this user about his general inappropriate behavior, as described in the OP and seen in this thread...If an admin doesn't find the time for this particular matter then suppose it can be wrapped up sometime soon, as becoming moot..thank you for your time..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you become nervous now that you've finally realized that this ANI report has backfired in a rather spectacular way? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    there are not enough police officers to deal with every crime and there are not enough admins to deal with every infraction, simple as that (it's backfired only in how you've filled it inappropriately...be nice to see you admonished for that in itself, which would be appropriate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what the word appropriate means? You seem to be using your own definition of the word disruptive. Tarage wrote: "Go away before you are forced to go away". That is an appropriate response to someone who behaves like you do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    no, I'd say his input, including that kind of statement is also entirely inappropriate..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And your recent block for editing disruptively, was that block also inappropriate? Was that admin also not a "good-faith admin"? And is the fact that you are editing disruptively again, only 2 weeks after your most recent block for the same offense ended, appropriate or inappropriate? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    see my talk page for what I think about that block; it's all right there, clearly explained (I'm going to stop engaging with you along irrelevant lines..so I'll allow you to put in one more irrelevant post, but I won't respond, no matter what's contained in it)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    a problem is that 90% of this thread can literally be deleted as being totally irrelevant to the OP/original issue..what admin wants to read through all that? I think there are just not enough admins to have attention at everything...as ideally this would have been looked at immediately and solved thereby avoiding "The Quixotic Potato's" repetitive disruption of this thread...but at this point it's largely a lost cause..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Potguru

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

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

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

    On each page where there was any controversy I brought the issue to the talk page. On each page where I have made edits my edits are clear and precise. --Potguru (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the reason for the proposed merger is that cannabis(drug) and cannabis(the plant) seem to be the same issue to me. Rather than controversially move or make a change I am asking for concensus, which is what we are supposed to do on wikipedia. --Potguru (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is what you believe then I question your competence to edit the topic at all. -- Moxy (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Moxy, where is this coming from? We were having a perfectly meaningful conversation about the meaning of the word marijuana and now you decide to attack me personally as incompetent? --Potguru (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an attack ... a POV statement that your not knowledgeable enough to edit this topic at this point in time. I have seen to much wrong guess work at this point to believe otherwise.-- 03:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    You challenged my competence and presume I am guessing at things, that is an unwelcome personal attack. --Potguru (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken. I called for concensus on a merge of this article back in January. Consensus was no comment for or against and so I carefully merged the pages. Then another editor came in and undid all my work without comment so I largely undid his reversions in favor of the concensus version. (And I took a great deal of effort on my merge). --Potguru (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My edit on this page is consistent with other articles that talk about marijuana or cannabis. There was no nefarious intent in that edit, please assume my edits are for the betterment of the readers as they are --Potguru (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the notice that the official word for marijuana on wikipedia is cannabis? Again, my edits are consitent with the sources. There is no 420 "cannabis holiday", it is a "marijuana holiday". If there is concensus on this issue please point me to it because I do not see where we all came to agree that every instance of marijuana should be replaced with cannabis. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said the move was and is consistent with the content on the page. If you have sources that talk about a "cannabis policy in Colorado" please share them, otherwise we must stick to the cited references because Wikipedia is no place for original work. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did show you sources....enough is enough. -- Moxy (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, where did you show me sources that talk about a cannabis policy in Colorado? You showed me the definition of industrial hemp in Colorado, is that what you are referring to? --Potguru (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets quote the act that has been show to you a few times now and is the topic of the article " Colorado Amendment 64- In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product. -- Moxy (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Text of amendment 64 can be found here: http://www.fcgov.com/mmj/pdf/amendment64.pdf In the text, as I have pointed out to you several times, the defintion of marijuana is: "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS, OR ITS RESIN, INCLUDING MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE. "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS, OIL, OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEED OF THE PLANT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK, OR OTHER PRODUCT. I emphasise the second sentence to highlight why marijuana is not the same as cannabis... cannabis with less than 0.03% THC is hemp and hemp is not marijuana per the above definition. --04:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ok I am puzzled then...your aware both text above that the term Cannabis is used then further defined by the terms MJ and hemp.....and that the article talks about both MJ and hemp but you think its best to call it " marijuana" when its clear cannabis is being used as the parent term in the act then sub-defined? Can you explain this logic to me pls. -- Moxy (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Puzzled? Perhaps we should continue talking about this then, rather that you suggesting I be banned because you do not understand what I am saying. I have been saying the same thing for days that marijuana (per the above definition and the original 1937 definition) is a portion of the cannabis plant and the remainder is hemp. That is what most of the articles say and that is what my edits are about. --Potguru (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further review of the prior ANI discussion, skip the warning, propose topic ban on all content related to marijuana and cannibus for six months. If the editor shows that they aren't just going to bull-in-a-china-shop elsewhere, they can go back to that topic but the prior history shows little need for patience. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be specific about the "nonsense" you are referring to. --Potguru (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give me an example of a warning I have ignored I am unaware that I have ignored any administrators warnings. I respect wikipedia policy which is why I must insist that the text of articles be supported by the actual citations used not some other unknown reason. --Potguru (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not insult our intelligence here. There have been tens if not hundreds of editors on these topics for years, either you believe you have some brilliant insights about how these things should be worded and your ego needs a check or you're just an jerk who's going to push whatever they believe regardless of other people but neither of which is helpful here. If you don't see a problem, then we should just block you right now and move on. You've already wasted more of our time than is necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike that. Slow down and learn the proper processes here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've made any edits since I started responding to this and my talk thread. I learned how to take a walk a long time ago, which is why I do not edit war. --Potguru (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad you struck out the nail which you hit squarely on the head. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been chewed out enough over "Admin conduct" and incivility for calling people. I'm trying to be nicer although it ruins the bluntless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Moxy I'm surprised at this post on the heals of your statement "I think you think your doing the right thing" just hours ago. Please take the time to respond to my replies above. Your call for me to be banned would only serve to end any meaningful discussion of the term marijuana vs the term cannabis which you admitted just yesterday is an important discussion that we need to have. --Potguru (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is a topic we need to talk about.....but we are having trouble moving forward because we are dealing with you and your edits all the time. --Moxy (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is an mportant discussion we will have it. If we require you around to discuss it, it probably isnt very important. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what you hope to gain by attacking me. Please refrain from attacking other editors or assuming the worst about their intentions. --Potguru (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree re a formal warning and if no progress a topic ban, user seems to be only interested in cannabis. I thought his attempts to merge cannabis and cannabis (drug), two enormous articles, to be spurious. he or she is better off learning the ropes of wikipedia before engagng controversially wth ths topic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User has updated countless articles on various topics. User authored the original "Drumpf" article which was covered by major media (later merged into another article). You are hasty in your review, you should take more time to see what I have contributed to the site because your assessment is far too narrow. Your premature ending of the merge was also hasty, you seem to have a pattern. --Potguru (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We can talk about that merge if you like. You wanted to merge a huge biology article on the genus Cannabis with an even larger article on cannabis as a drug. After six editors opposed your proposal, with not one supporting, which we call a WP:SNOWBALL result, and after I asked you why you had made such an odd merge proposal, and with no justification for doing so in your opening comments, you admitted that it was to test consensus, ie you had no reasn for making such a proposal. So I would argue that the pattern and the disruptive editing is comng from you, and the fact that you are blaming me is part of the pattern. No other editor is supporting your comments re me but a whole host of editor are complaining about your behaviour on the cannabis articles. You seem to be attacking me in order to try to divert attenton from yourself. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see where I have attacked you at all. I have made clear that I think your edits are edit warring but I made my reasoning very clear on your talk page. It is more than clear that you act in haste, as you did to revert more than a half dozen articles I carefully verified and then you (willy nilly) reverted my considered edits. Have you even looked at the cited material in any of those articles? They all refer to marijuana, not cannabis as your edits would have us believe. --Potguru (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous discussions for reference. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately this editor has been using WikiP as a WP:FORUM since, at least, the end of March. You can see various threads beginning here Talk:Colorado Springs, Colorado#March 2016 Marijuana Industry section content dispute. This is but one of several edit summaries where they reinserted info in spite of the discussion on the talk page pointing out the problematic nature of the edits. They have had the "WikiP ropes" explained again and again. I am not sure whether they will ever understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a WP:SOAPBOX. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Above editor unreasonably removed several posts about [marijuana] from Colorado Springs article until same editor was forced to follow concensus. We all agreed on specific text and that text is in the Colorado Springs article today. Marijuana is a huge industry and daily news item in Colorado Springs. But we came to consensus and that is where the article stands today with a short blurb about marijuana in the culture section. --Potguru (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice job on getting it backwards. You were the one inserting items against the consensus and the short blurb is what was agreed upon my the rest of us that were commenting on that talk page. This illustrates, quite well the reason that this topic ban is now being discussed. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually what I was doing was boldly editing an article. Then you would remove what I wrote because you thought there was no place in the Colorado Springs article for any discussion of marijuana. Then I'd write something else and then you'd remove what I wrote. Then we got other editors to look at the situation and once we all came to concensus the article was updated. Since then I added this unchallenged timely [edit]. --Potguru (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No remorse, no willingness to concede to work with other editors. Editor desperately needs a timeout, especially considering past trip to ANI. Definitely has a very specific POV agenda and WP:NOTHERE I personally think 6 months is harsh, everyone deserves a second chance, but the nonsense has to end. Lipsquid (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am perfectly willing to accept concensus, as I stated clearly above. Why should I show remorse? I do not believe I am doing anything wrong by insisting every article follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. --Potguru (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think you have done anything wrong, then maybe 6 months is appropriate so you can use the time to figure out how to collaborate on Wikipedia. Lipsquid (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if you study my interaction with MarnetteD on the Colorado_Springs,_Colorado article specifically you can see that I used the talk page to have a conversation with other editors and we achieved concensus, which was not what MarnetteD wanted. I think this incident demonstrated perfectly my willingness to listen, learn and consider others and concensus in my editing as I learn to work as a newbie in this complicated website. --Potguru (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if you would stop misrepresenting what happened. First, I wanted consensus to be reached - I have a long history of working with others in situations like this - that is why I took part in the discussion. Next, I was not the only editor to remove your problematic edits as can be seen here. Next, "after" consensus was reached you continued to ignore it with edits like this and this. Most of us work hard to achieve WP:CONSENSUS in situations like this - please do not misstate what happened then or now. MarnetteD|Talk 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOLD cannot be used as a carte blanche for POV pushing. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    These edits are not about my point of view, but about the sourced content. In each and every edit I've made "since march" I believe I have been extremely careful to make edits that follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If I have not, please show me that edit and I will immediately update it. If we all follow the same policy of making sure the articles reflect their sources and that the articles all have Wikipedia:Verifiability you will see my edits are all "correct". If an article says "cannabis" then the cited source must say cannabis but if the cited source says marijuana then the article body must reflect that. Unless there is some rule that we must always use cannabis in a sentence, even when such a use is wrong or unsupported by citation. --Potguru (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Far from calming down Potguru has come to my talk page accusing me of dsruptive editing, after trying to tidy upafter him and doing general linkng changes here. IMO this is just part of a pattern and that he needs to calm down or face consequences right now. He is complaning about my fixing some of his moves from cannabis to marijuana in article titles but he made those changes against consesnsus, and it is this ignoring consensus that has resulted in him being here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect you did not "tidy up", you reverted edits based on no concensus and in all articles you seem to have ignored the talk pages. As I clearly stated on your talk page I think your edits are disruptive and instead of reporting your activities here on this page I followed the policy on this page and brought the issue to your attention directly. Now tell me why did you change the text of articles without first following the Wikipedia:Verifiability or the Wikipedia:Article_titles policy? You just moved [| this page] from Marijuana in Maine State to Cannabis in Maine State yet the article NEVER mentions the word cannabis, instead all the references and text clearly state "marijuana". Your moving the page makes no sense based on the article content. Please explain. --Potguru (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was at cannabis for over a year, is based off Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction and Cannabis in the United States so I'm not sure how you can say there's a consensus for your move so a reversion is fine. I'd say your attacks are not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because a low interest article sits incorrectly for some period of time does not mean, in any way, that it is "right". There are a whole series of nearly identical articles all created by the same original author all at about the same time and almost all of them use the word cannabis incorrectly based upon the cited sources. What I did is go through the sources to verify the text of the article and low and behold the article text did not match the citation. The Cannabis in Kansas state is a really good example of a bad article. I went through and changed all occuranced of cannabis to marijuana (where they were wrong) and left the one occurrence of the word cannabis alone as it was correct. Then another editor (who is really angry about the issue) came through and reverted all my well considered edits. At almost exactly this same time I moved the article to the more appropriate namespace marijuana in Kansas State. So seeing the edit, rather than start an edit war, I posted very carefully on the talk page trying to achieve concensus. Then, without contributing to that conversation, RichardWeiss moved the article back to the former namespace in what I consider an edit war. (He later commented on the talk page). --Potguru (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Potguru, yu are completely ignoring that this thread is about you. And you didnt have consensus, I checked, as is clear here too. You dont seem to be listening. You need to go and edit other topics for a while until you calm down, I am not being threatened with a topic ban. And the fact that you are so insensitive to the threat you are facing isnt a good sign. If you make a complaint here about me it will be taken as part of your campaign of bad behaviour that brought you here and an insistence on not following advice by taking a break from the issue. This thread is about getting you to calm down and you are refusing and getting more worked up instead. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "And you didnt have consensus, I checked" editors are not required to have any concensus when moving an article that is not contentious. The reason I moved the page was that, at the time, the content did not support the article title and moving it was the best way to make sense of it. " getting more worked up instead." I am not getting 'worked up' at all. I am very calmly making my case. I do wish you would revert disruptive half dozen or so namespace moves you have made without a good reason to do so and with little to no support in the body of the articles to support your [hasty moves]. --Potguru (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Chill, man. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are misreading policy. You don't need consensus if it is not contentious, meaning a consensus would agree. In this case, you should have known that moving highly edited article titles is going to be contentious. If you really felt that no one would object to this radical change, then this calls your judgement into question, reinforcing the reason you need to be topic banned. Dennis Brown - 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Support topic ban - I'm involved so can't act administratively, but there seems to be more than few over the years that want to war over the name Marijuana vs. the proper botanical name Cannabis, and Potguru has already been given fair warning. Cannabis is a busy topic and we don't need people who can't edit collaboratively editing them. Enough is enough. I would also note that voting to NOT support the ban due to not liking topic bans in general is pretty much a non-vote. This isn't about the politics of Wikipedia, it is about the behavior of ONE editor. Dennis Brown - 10:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have filed this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potguru, i think there is quite a strong case. Potguru has made over 3000 edits in 4 months, which is a lot for a new user, and his early edits dont indicate a new user. Wouldnt surprise me at all if he isnt a new user. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @RichardWeiss and Dennis Brown: Funnily enough, it was that which encouraged me to investigate, Dennis  ;) Richard, I've commented at the SPI page. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    there is a distinctly cospiratorial 'us and them' interaction here, with borderline canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. Pin Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. Potguru seems to mean well, and it is quite surprising that the word "marijuana" does not appear in the lead, or almost anywhere, in the main Cannabis article, so I can see his frustration and confusion as to why some of the edits have been reversed and others do not perceive that some changes may be for the better. It seems that even direct quotes have been changed to remove the "m" word, which does seem to indicate a tilt towards accuracy on this editor's part. Potguru should take it slower, and maybe do an WP:RM at the 'Cannabis (drug)' page to create a wider discussion, which could help to explain his objections and hoped-for-additions. But a topic ban seems a bit extreme for an editor who, from indications, wants to expand reader knowledge on the subject. If everyone backs off a step, and Potguru takes his time, some of what he is concerned about may work itself out.Randy Kryn 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    However the Cannabis (drug) article does mention the word "marijuana" in the lead, and the drug article is 'hatnoted' on the plant page. Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but the main Cannabis article does not although it mentions other plant-based uses and products. The point I'm making is that Potguru, too, was probably surprised at that and maybe went gung-ho in trying to add things like that in Cannabis pages. He does seem to have some good points, which is why my oppose on the topic ban (although he should be continued to be guided by the Wikipedia project members and not jump full-body into the changes he would like to see). Randy Kryn 14:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think he should be guided by WP project members and to follow collaboration standards and yet he blatantly says that he is right and that all other opinions on this subject are wrong and he won't stop changing article names. Then how can someone oppose a topic ban? What other choice is there if he isn't going to stop? Lipsquid (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown: A topic ban for someone who's right and fighting against silly renaming of all cannabis related articles being renamed to Cannabis (insert use here), is wrong. That's why I oppose a topic ban. You have to understand that some editors, take Wikipedia seriously and do their best to keep other Wikipedia editors from ruining articles. Topic banning such editors from editing articles (or banning them altogether), is wrong, and well, it's Wikipedia's loss at the end of the day. HempFan (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "A topic ban for someone who's right"....and that is where I drifted off. Topic bans are not about who is right or wrong, they are about behavior that is inconsistent with a collaborative, collegiate environment. Everyone thinks they are "right", so being "right" isn't a license to behave poorly. Dennis Brown - 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if so, then the burden is on you and everyone else who want Potguru topic banned, to provide valid examples where he has been highly disruptive, because just voting yes to a topic ban doesn't count, it has to be substantiated with examples. From the little experience I've had with Potguru, he's been very collaborative, and totally unproblematic. I also oppose his topic ban for those reasons. Granted, I haven't seen much of his editing history, so it's possible I'm wrong, but from what I've seen, he's been totally professional, and that should count as far as I'm concerned. HempFan (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue at hand is about consensus, not burden. I didn't propose the topic ban, I have no burden. Each person participating has their own burden to look closely at his history or don't participate. Dennis Brown - 21:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus, burden, I say potato, you say potahto... Consensus should be reached by providing valid examples, not opinion dropping based on, well, nothing? HempFan (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is the same problem that got us here in the first place...please read the legislation ...where is talks about Cannabis that is then sub-defined by MJ and hemp (be that right or wrong) ...why would the title only reflect one sub topic..only makes sense to use the parent term. To quote the Colorado act again In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product....the act then goes on to talk about what MJ is. its clear....Cannabis is the main term that is then sub-defined by its parts (or lets say THC levels) as MJ or hemp.-- Moxy (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Moxy, I apologize. I see your point (Well, I "saw" it with difficulty! Could you please not use the tiny letters? They are hard to read for us older folk) and have struck Cannabis policy of Colorado from my "oppose" above. An article about a "policy" is different from the articles about Kansas and Maine, to which I still object. Thank you for your courtesy and patience. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Controversial content added by User:Escravoes

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

    Propose boomerang on the OP at the Kuala Lumpa article: for making offensive edit-summaries, not assuming good faith, lack of civility, etc; but mainly for his tendentious editing, effectively vadalising the article by removing sourced material (on grounds of WP:DONTLIKEIT), then making tiny edits to prevent rollback, and finally for then bringing this spurious report. Those other refs might need a touch of copy-editing, but again, they are all sourced, and in any case constitute a content dispute which is not the purpose of AN/I. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
    Support boomerang per fortuna.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Which part of the content that I posted are , in your opinion, controversial, especially regarding Kuala Lumpur. Note that the points that I did posted were sourced from major websites; CNN, Huffington Post (Canada) and from several Malaysian newspapers, all of which are cited online and provided as references. Your accusations are not only baseless, but they are unfounded and reflected POV color on your part, and there were no intent of vandalisms on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escravoes (talkcontribs)

    To be honest, most of the content added by you has no relevance at all as an enyclopedic content. Most of your criticism addition have been reverted not just by me but other users too who see your addition as not neutral at all. I have given example of some your edits that was reverted for the same reason above. You can ask @Chipmunkdavis: on why your content was removed. Herman Jaka (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I asked, (as I did with @Chipmunkdavis:) - Which part of the content that I posted are , in your opinion, controversial, especially regarding Kuala Lumpur.

    Your accusation of vandalism are unfounded and baseless and reflected your partial POV, the ranking of the city are well-documented (CNN, Reuters, several local major newspapers) and directly relevant to the encylopedic content of the article, which itself listed several similar rankings!Escravoes (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editings by user:Tnguyen4321

    I'm here to report following issues in the article Battle of Ia Drang:

    • He's conducting disruptive editing/vandalism on the article without consensus with me and some other editors. When I raise the issue on the talk page,[31] he just keep ignoring it and continue his editing.
    • I also want to explain about my use of various IPs, as it seems that some other Wikipedians have been misunderstood about this: At the beginning of the incident, I forgot to sign in, so my intentity is under IP form. Because I've already use IP for my comments on the talk page, I decide not to use my account to avoid misleading about my identification. However, what I unexpected is that each time I sign in with a device, my IP turned out to be a different one; I haven't realized this until several days ago. So my use of various IPs was totally unintentional, and in fact I've never done anything to conceal the fact that it belongs to the same person. I also regularly leave comments and explanations on the talk page about my view and editing. However, it seems that user:Tnguyen4321 is making use of this accident to slander that I'm conducting vandalism (violating WP:BULLY and WP:NPA). Theoretically, my editing with those IPs was always followed by explanations, so it hadn't even reached the threshold of the definition of WP:VANDAL.[32][33] In fact, I think user:Tnguyen4321 himself is the one who's conducting either disruptive editing or vandalism, because many of his editing came without explanation or consensus with other editors; and had the habit of regularly removing OR tags before reaching consensus[34] (example here [35]).

    p/s: To avoid the further misunderstanding of my conduct as sock puppetry, I ensure that from now on this account will be my only identity that I use on the article. Please consider and sorry for the inconvenience. Dino nam (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for clarifying the circumstances surrounding your socking... By means of a confession to socking. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: even without a "improper purpose"? I think that if I had used my real account by then, it would have been misleading and thus constituting socking? Dino nam (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes improper. The misleading creation of an appearance of consensus. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: OK well. By the way no one have to worry about that anymore because I don't use those IPs at least for this article; you've got my word. I think we should rather concentrate on user:Tnguyen4321's conducts then. Thanks for provide me more info about sock puppetry. Dino nam (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The contributions of User:Rberchie is troubling and concerning. The user is not only a serial copyright violator but have also added numerous fake references to Wikipedia articles. Like user:Wikicology, they created hundreds of articles that are either unsourced or fortified with fake references. see my comment on their talk page. I followed Wikicology case from the now archived messy ANI thread to the Arbitration request. (Redacted) I discovered that User:Rberchie is part of Wiki Loves Women as a Wikipedian in residence. Having editors like Rberchie to serve as Wikipedian in residence will be counter-productive. Peter Damian and User:Mendaliv may be interested in this discussion. Idiot Guruman (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That was your ninth post??? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind you, it seems to be a fair question. Most of the images (except that one of him in Wikicology's his office, and that other) seem OK; but he is totally gilding his sources. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) It may be a fair question, but it also seems fair that Rberchie gets a chance of actually answering the questions posed. He has last been active on the 16th and the questions were all posted today (the 17th), some four to five hours ago. There's more than a small chance that Rberchie simply isn't aware of any of these questions, let alone this ANI-thread. At least one of the alleged copyright infringements on commons wasn't even uploaded by that user. All in all, way too soon and way too sloppy for WP:ANI. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not bad for a ninth post though. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest a thread title change. "Second Wikicology" is just going to get you blocked for harassing Wikicology, and probably get this thread prematurely closed as started for divisive reasons. My suggestion is that if there are copyvio images, tag them for speedy as such (or nominate for WP:PUF or a Commons DR if it's not blatant). Make a note of those images. As to the hundreds of bad articles, it might be worth taking a look. Still I agree with Kleuske that giving Rberchie a chance to respond before coming to ANI would have been a good idea. But now that we're here, well... —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the thread title to the actual issues at hand. Also, Idiot Guruman, I'm offended by your smear of "hundreds of editors like Wikicology from Global South" which maligns many editors without any evidence and also verges on colonial racism. I suggest you strike that accusation. It is especially galling to see such sweeping insults from an editor with 12 edits! Did you create this account just to make this complaint? Liz 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Christ, I didn't even process that. I've redacted that sentence as flat out inappropriate and distracting from the point of this thread. OP may merit sanctioning here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came to this via UAA. I have no opinion on the underlying issue, but this editor who appears out of nowhere to harass a user, that's not OK and I blocked them indefinitely. DoRD, you know about this already; Mike V, you looked into one of the IPs before. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have re-opened the case, since the underlying matter has not been resolved. I have no comment on the details. Kingsindian   01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • The now-blocked OP asked a series of questions on Rberchie's talk page. the answers were ....not promising. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For sure, Rberchie's media uploads on Commons are concerning. Some images are his own, that is not in reasonable doubt. However, here he claims that an image of the Ghanaian declaration of independence (which happened in 1957) was his own work: note the file information template says it was done in 2015. This suggests at minimum a lack of understanding of the rules on derivative works. Still, that's no worse than the incompetence demonstrated by several WMF staff who do not seem to realise that CC BY-SA requires you to attribute the authors of things you screenshot. BethNaught (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User OptimusView

    In the article Kyaram Sloyan user OptimusView removes POV tag[36][37] despite there is no any consensus that the neutrality of article is OK. Discussion still ongoing on a talk. I think such edits are against WP:Disrupt. Please return the tag back and take administrative measures in relation to this user who was already warned by me, but preferred to continue removing the tag without any consensus. --Interfase (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The article represents all the points of view, including Azerbaijani accusations. Today another user even added the Azerbaijani position to the lead section and removed the POV tag as baseless. But Interfase (who was blocked twice for editwarrings [38]) adds it back claiming the article is still not neutral, he calls sources like The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Regnum, etc. yellow journalism and refuses to ask for another third-opinion comment. OptimusView (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This just might be a classic case of WP:BOOMERANG. Interfase is a topic-banned user that has been violating his topic ban for quite some time now. Consistent edit-warring and POV pushing appears to be the theme. Interfase has been edit-warring over several users at Kyaram Sloyan to maintain a POV tag ([39][40][41][42]) and there's no sense of compromise when it comes to his beliefs. He is the sole user at that article who deems it necessary to have the POV tag placed. Tiptoethrutheminefield's good faith efforts at the article to make it as neutral as possible (going as far as to place the Azerbaijani perspective in the lead) has been subjugated to constant edit-warring and reluctance by Interfase to accept the consensus against him. Some of Interfase's additions are complete POV OR and the user even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. These two particular edits ([43][44]) which I came across recently are disruptive and in complete violation of his topic ban. He did not explain about this addition on the talk page before making his revert as his topic ban requires. Above all, the claim is completely OR, and is entirely untrue and Interfase even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. This needs to stop. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support boomerang. Rabid nationalists have no place on Wikipedia.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually there are several proArmenian users who POVpush the article with non-neutral information. Despite there is no any serious reliable sources about beheading (accusitions of Azerbaijan' army (UN member by the way) are very serious accusitions to present it as a fact replying just on media). Also I don't think that reporters of The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Regnum saw the beheading scenes themselves to reply these media. They just shared that info that was taken from social networks and shared by Armenian sources. Of course it makes them "yellow journalism". This issue was not covered by serious media (like BBC or CNN e.g.) and there is no any condemnations of Azerbaijan by serious organisation (UN e.g.). I think untill neutrality of the article is not corrected (frase such "beheaded" should be replaced with "reportedly beheaded") the "POV" tag should be in place and should not be removed by force. I will not repeat my mistake and will not make a reverts, but the neutrality of the article should be corrected. P.S. Claims that Ramil Safarov is "National hero of Azerbaijan" in entirely untrue. Web-site safarov.org is not reliable source but just some fan site. Show the text of order in official source or president's website (like this one about ordering Mubariz Ibrahimov). --Interfase (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And how do you explain your violations of your topic bans and restrictions? --Tarage (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I already said that it was my mistake. I will not make a reverts again but initiate a discussion on a talk (both discussions on talk were initiated by me btw). But the tag should not be removed untill consensus on neutrality is reached. --Interfase (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you not under restrictions preventing you from editing in those topics? --Tarage (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not under such restrictions. I am able to edit those topics and duscuss them on a talk. --Interfase (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The full topic ban has been rescinded, but under continuing editing restrictions Interfase is required to make a talk page explanation for any revert he makes, and do it before making the actual revert. I think that just making a general post on the talk page, or initiating a discussion, or continuing an active discussion, is not really a revert edit explanation; surely the post made has to cite the actual edit that is about to be made and explain why that specific revert is needed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no justification for a mass use of the word "reportedly" to characterize the events covered in this article. Where opinions or statements have been expressed in only one source, such as the identification of one of the soldiers posing with the severed head, those have been described in the article using wording like "according to". However, almost all the sources are in agreement: Sloyan was killed during the conflict, his body was returned minus its head, his head was returned later, photos showing various Azerbaijani soldiers posing with the severed head of an Armenian soldier were posted online, video material of a crowd of Azeri-speaking civilians gathered around an individual who them produces a severed head from a bag was also posted online, and this severed head was that of Sloyan. The few sources that disagree are Azerbaijan-based sources (they include one official statement, supporting the lede wording that Azerbaijan has denied the incident happened). Actually there seem to be very few such Azerbaijani sources, the article has just two and Interfase has failed to provide any more. I think that the content in all of the sources cited have been expressed neutrally and accurately and in proportion. Interfase's objections really have no substance behind them, and his solution, to place the word "reportedly" in front of every item of content, cannot seriously be followed. There is not a case to be made for the article to remain pov tagged because there is not a problem that needs correcting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The information about "his body was returned minus its head, his head was returned later" seems very dubious. The body was returned with the presence of international observers from Red Cross. If it was without head, there should be some reaction or strongly condemnations of Azerbaijan, UN member. The photos and videos taken from social networks with dubious background may also be falsicicated (off-line Azeri speech as well). Neither reliable experts nor serious media paid an attention on them. All these make us not to present such kind of information as a fact but just reports and accusitions on alleged actions. --Interfase (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And in Azerbaijan people regularly carry around severed heads in plastic bags, just in case one is required for a photo shoot or a public presentation. There is no content in the article that says his body was returned with the presence of international observers from Red Cross. The speed of the burial suggests his headless body was recovered from the battlefield by Armenian forces as they regained territory lost during the initial assault. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, there is no any evidence that the video was taken in Azerbaijan. Secondly, Armenian side said that Sloyan's head, as they claimed, was handed over with the presence of observers from Red Cross[45]. As I said if it was really so, there would be serious sensation and condemnations of Azerbaijan by serious organisations. But we see nothing that makes us not to use that info as a fact. --Interfase (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only organization that participated in the process of transmission, was Red Cross, which, according to the source you provided "has no right to comment publicly on the circumstances of the incidents in the course of military operations". It was a serious sensation as The Open Society Institute, The Sunday Times and others write about it. And the interim public report of the Human Right's defender (ombudsman) of NKR confirms that at the European Ombudsman Institute Official Site. OptimusView (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ombudsman of NKR is not reliable and neutral source. The article of Marianna Grigoryan in eurasianet.org also by the way. The Sunday Times' report was based on the info from social networks (dubious and not reliable as its reporters were no there). Still no any evidence of "beheading", no any serious sensation. Just claims and accusitions without real facts and consequences for Azerbaijan. So, if there is no any evidence, why should we turn our project to yellow journalism? --Interfase (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal refspam

    I meant this to be added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Reference spam (I actually did add it, and had to revert myself after I realized it was an archive). @Doug Weller, Liz, SpacemanSpiff, Deli nk, DMacks, and David Eppstein: notifying those who took part in that discussion.

    The original ANI complaint was about 39.37.116.188 (talk · contribs) and 119.158.13.23 (talk · contribs), but many more IPs have been involved—all, I believe, used by one editor.

    Several of these IPs were reported at SPI, but I think it's clear that he's not any kind of sock; he's just editing Wikipedia anonymously, with each session a different IP. He may be hopping IPs to stay below the radar, but I have no way to know that.

    I put together a table of his history, as far as I've found it. I was going take it to WP:Spam, but here seems more appropriate, and might get more eyes and skills into deciding what to do.

    I've been checking every edit, meaning to hit them all eventually, working forward in time. I've been able to work through the first four IPs, but I have spot-checked all of the rest. During the hours and days I've spent looking at his edits, this is what I've found:

    • Each IP has Most IPs have edits for one date, sometimes two some have more.
    • EVERY SINGLE EDIT The vast majority of his edits have to do with citations to references by Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal; usually adding it, sometimes reformatting slightly, or updating a doi, or replacing his thesis with a published article.
    • Except for one account, There is very, very little else (text or whatever) added to the articles edited. That one account is the oldest and has the longest history, though there's no way of knowing if it's the same person. Likely not.
    • I have found ONE four edits that were not his that cited his work.
    • Each editing session gives the appearance of looking for articles that might have anything to do with one of his subjects of "expertise" and planting citations in any spot that looks even slightly likely. (I'm aware this view is definitely not AGF.)
    • Many of the citations are to articles he's written in encyclopedias while he was still in graduate school.
    • The books are mostly(?) sometimes published by Mellen Press, which apparently has a reputation of being an academic vanity press.
    • He is very patient and persistent, often re-adding a ref a few days or weeks after it's been reverted or removed.
    • He has been spamming like this since at least March 2013.
    • The total count of these edits is 627 705.
    updated by — Gorthian (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think all his refs should be deleted; he should not be rewarded in any way for this behavior. I have no idea what else could be done to stop him. He hasn't replied to the few times he's been warned. — Gorthian (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TParis you were asking at WT:COI the other day about WP:SELFCITE. Here at ANI there is this case, and there is one above that was just closed with a community site-ban. Academics refspam pretty regularly, cause disruption doing it, and folks find it... upsetting. I am not sure what to do with the kind of dedicated longterm spamming described here. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't just simple refspam, e.g. the grad student / now post doc is a contributor to this book but they have used it and added their name as a reference here where the problem is that the person is NOT a contributing author to that referred section. I came to this a second time courtesy of RegentsPark who started this discussion on my talk page, and it was then that I found out that DVdm, Oshwah, and Ogress among others were already spending their time cleaning up this mess. This has happened for over three years, longer than the average lifecycle of a Wikipedia editor and it's wasting the time of many. Owing to the single minded devotion of the IPs, an edit filter is probably required to prevent further disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good candidate for an edit filter. — Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, preferably a smart one, as there's 4276 ways to come up with variations of the name. - DVdm (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds similar (although different subject matter) to the persistent efforts of Krantmlverma (talk · contribs), who was eventually indef'd or some such across multiple projects. Dvdm is correct re: the spelling issue - Indic articles are routinely manipulated by persistent abusers who adopt alternate spellings to continue pushing their agenda. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it definitely te case that an edit filter won't help? Doug Weller talk 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Something needs to be done. This stuff will end up flowing back into Wikipedia indirectly. For example this book on Azerbaijan uses Mughal as a reference but that's because they've lifted it from our Azerbaijan article. Someone else will cite Mughal indirectly through this book and, before you know it, we're going to be indirectly citing him as well. He's using Wikipedia to get his citation count up. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Until the capable folk who write edit filters do something I can block the IPs as they show up (which itself seems to be difficult to track). Or maybe someone could train Cluebot to revert this stuff as it shows up. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @DVdm: I doubt very much whether this guy would ever deliberately misspell, or even shorten, his name. If I understand edit filters correctly, it seems a good filter would be an effective solution. — Gorthian (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A good filter, yes, probably. - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still finding more, and updating the table here (the edit count is now 734 705). Feel free to edit it for any more IPs you find, or to mark a set of edits checked. At least one editor has been using it to track down articles to clean out. I'm really grateful to all of you who have been helping! — Gorthian (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved

    for now. All the cites we could find have been cleaned out, except for the four articles where other editors cited his work (well, one was cleared out, and the creating editor hasn't objected yet). I gathered some numbers as I went: A total of 711 edits done on 43 different dates over a period of 3 years and 2 months using 50 different IPs. I will be requesting an edit filter so we can at least track him when he gets in a "citing" mood again. I created a subpage in my user space to record what's been done: Mughal empire. — Gorthian (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks User:Gorthian and everyone else working on it! DMacks (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Page moves by Athishjenith

    The user Athishjenith recently moved his user and user talk page, which should not have been done. An administrator should move Wikipedia:Athish Jenith to User:Athishjenith and Wikipedia talk:Athish Jenith to User talk:Athishjenith, suppressing redirects by unchecking the "Leave a redirect behind" box. Also, the same administrator should delete Wikipedia:K.M.Ravi Chandran, Wikipedia talk:K.M.Ravi Chandran, Athish Jenith, Talk:Athish Jenith, and User:Athish Jenith. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Seen; multi-redirects. Suggest block of substantial if not indefinite duration, as this seems to be part of a campaign to have his autobiography in article space, which had previously resulted in a block. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 02:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the user talk page back to its correct location and deleted the redirects and advised the user not to attempt any more page moves. — Diannaa (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a replay of the user's 2012 actions, presumably in the hope that it'll escape notice now. (Good job catching it, GeoffreyT2000.) Athish jenith was creation protected already in 2012, and he also repeatedly moved his userpage there in 2012, see the contribs. Admins can also see his deleted contribs, a rather longer list. I've creation protected a couple more of the versions he has created of his bio, AthishJenith and Athish Jenith. I really don't think he's here for any other purpose, or will be impressed by advice now, Diannaa, since he was blocked for 72 hours for these moves etc in 2012 and wasn't impressed by that. Time for indef, surely. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Support indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by User:Richard allokendek

    • over-wrote a redirect to redirect to a page he was creating. Appears not to have adequate English language skills to be a useful editor here: doesn't seem to know difference between singular and plural nouns. PamD 07:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, agree with Xx236 that they're disasters rather than pages. I just tagged the near incomprehensible Batu (village) for cleanup. Sample sentence: "Batus original name is Wadli Itang named by dotu ruruwares came from tikala ares 1378 years old, wife ruruwares a name pingkan, she a first tread wadli itang." Google translate, I presume. It's far worse now than when it was just a stub (and was tagged for speedy). If we ever block editors for not knowing English, now is the time. But I'll hold off blocking until I see if PamD's warning has any effect. (Though I'm not sure they know they have a talkpage. I seem to be saying this all over ANI, but it's a fact that new users don't necessarily know. If you think it's intuitive, no, it only becomes so with habit.) Bishonen | talk 08:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    The phrase he replaced "Ghoul" with appears to be an Indonesean language. It translated to "ghoul is a monster or evil spirit in Arabian mythology". His English appears to be sub-par, I'm pinging Aldnonymous on Meta as he shows up in the Embassy list as an Indonesean speaker, he's also an admin on the Indonesean Wikipedia and might recognize this user , based on interest and writing from his Wikipedia . KoshVorlon 15:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Hopper on Social work

    Does this constitute a legal threat? Regardless, user is part of a range of IP that have been disruptive on the talk for quite a while. For example, I have warned them previously against editing others comments, which they have continued to do, after a long hiatus and pinky promising not to. They seem intent on wasting the time of all involved, in addition to general disruption and vandalism.

    Previous posts here have accomplished nothing ([47], [48], [49]). So...if something could be done that would be super. TimothyJosephWood 10:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the surface, there certainly is a problem but I'm out the door. I don't know that range blocks would work, it covers a few ranges. It may require protection on the talk pages and affected articles. It is an inconvenience to other IPs, but before doing it, someone would need to look at it how much of an inconvenience and maybe a subpage for IPs, plus a month worth of semiprotection. Dennis Brown - 10:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaand the ip is continuing to vandalize the talk page in a "I wish I had rollback" kindof way. Can someone at least semi? TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging from the protection log, this problem has continued for a long time. I've applied two months of semiprotection. If another admin believes that any meaningful negotiation is possible with the IP, they can modify or remove the semi. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: @Dennis Brown: Kindly check:[50] this [51], [52] was an attempt to solve issues following Timothyjosephwood example:[53] base on this info:Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed. To see the other side of this others have to look into:[54] and see:[55], [56]...etc. Above all I am not very wiki-savvy so only found this now. The previous ANI is also a conspire using similar deceptive tactics by other editors and most probable this is an off wiki tag team attack (judging by similarity in actions). Other requests of privileges are for misuse of similar nature. Deletion of disruptive content that intents to attack others or shows characteristics of manipulative and maladaptive practice could be deleted this was confirmed by administrators. So this actions were taken:[57], [58]. Instituting a range block is an attack to certain region specific editors, these sort of requests should be seen as hostility rather than in good faith plus there is no pinky promise with disruptive and mal-intent editors or the editor has to show this statement. This is a wasting of time of all involved when editor who contested for this block is not open for discussions and chooses other means. Calling any editor a vandal is strictly prohibited in the article talk page still Timothyjosephwood intends to claim WP:IDHT when details are explicit in the article: [59] about the changes made and reasoning. I request all the editors involved in this ANI Notice to check whether there are any disruptions on the basis of the information seen on this comment and links provided or a through investigation (if time allows). I hope everyone included in this will consider the ip and the registered editor in equal weight and judgement will only be based on the actions of these editors.59.89.239.32 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So yeah, this is pretty much the MO of the user. Long winded diatribes that don't really boil down to much. Perfectly able to cite multiple diffs as well as WP policy, but "oh please don't bite I'm new". Refusing to register an account while advancing an argument that any IP edit, no matter how obviously related, was someone else. They at one point got Diannaa to unprotected the page arguing that the disruptive edits were from a conference they were at (a conference of people in Kerala editing a single WP page?).
    But the page for the past few months has just been a series of protections. Not sure what a more permanent solution is given the ranges of the IPs, but I have good confidence that a month semi is just going to see us back here in June. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay dear, let others please read the statement and reply they don't need your interpretations, do they now. They are also able to think and see for what it is. citing multiple diffs is a recent skill i found. But your claim that all ips are one is a bit obtuse. Dont attack users like Diannaa for your ends and yes the page social work was edited when irregularities where cited in a conference with the lead section and further viewing the talk page only confirmed those actions, I was there. Above all you are the one who has initiated this block using manipulated evidence any blind can see this fact.

    • Attempt to resolve certain issues based on Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed:[60], this was done when redaction was not possible.
    • Attempt to resolve rv game by following your example: [61]
    • Two time rv attempt by you, one:[62]
    • Talk initiated to solve the issue if your actions where based on policy: [63]
    • Deceptive move by you to ascertain authority or your position: [64] and [65] and this done while we were talking and you didn't inform for giving a say when i was active:[66].
    • Resultant block from misunderstanding and your abuse of good faith by trying to glory hog and seek favors of privileges: [67]

    If checked every other blocks might also have certain history of deceptive tacts and this might be the MO used for the protections. Answer your actions and abuse of privileges, then we can talk about wonders of the world. I am certain if this sort of malpractice isn't stopped we will be seeing back here, if notified in the talk page. Either me(most probably) or others will be there to reduce disruptions.59.89.239.32 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Full disclosure: I have made significant investments in the rope industry, and stand to gain financially from this thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Timothyjosephwood, what is rope industry (https://www.google.be/#q=rope+industry%2Bwikipedia%2Bpolicy), I don't see anything if it is related to the policy. But may i note one thing if Timothyjosephwood is implying from gain and from this thread for winning the consensus of other editors involved: If the actions are not of an responsible editor then warning to not disrupt and notification on the user's page of the editor's actions for the see of other editors before handing privileges is enough. Thank you.
    Note:This is not forum shopping, this is just empathy for the other editor.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a tongue-in-cheek reference to WP:ROPE. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good-one, :D 117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @59.89.239.32: You need to back off. You are working yourself into a position that could end up in a block. Take your next step very carefully. --TJH2018talk 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thank you for the threatening your actions are clear as the sky is blue. Others see FIMs talk page and [68]
    For anyone in any doubt as to the extent of WP:SHOPPING going on here, please see my talk page (not countining the repeated attempts to take Timothy Joseph to AN3. This is getting mildly surreal. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Imperatrix Mundi, we were talking about your actions in removal of AN3 I added and it is similar to that of Timothy Joseph added and you were clear you don't want to talk about it:[69] so which is surreal. After Floquenbeam statement:[70] I am not going to involve with you same courtesy would be followed by you I hope.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @59.89.239.32 Refactoring other's comments again, I see. Perhaps a minor move, but you have been through this repeatedly, so why won't you leave other's comments alone? Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Our Kerala friend has been asked not to comment on several user's talk pages, sometimes does so anyway Diannaa example. wp:Editor integrity is applicable on many points. The IP has alienated a number of editors and seems convinced that it is their fault and not his.
    Is there a way to do a range block combined with a set of articles? i.e. IPs geolocating to Kerala, India and articles relating to social work?
    Barring this, can this Kerala, India IP be declared WP:NOTHERE and edits rolled back per WP:DENY without comment? All of this has been a great waste of time and frustration. Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusation of racism Friendly Talk Jim1138 (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Kerala is way, way too broad - it's a city of more than 33 million people. That'd be like range-blocking Canada. AusLondonder (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now there's an idea 😉 Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do recall a recent suggestion to range block Australia. TimothyJosephWood 10:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that Kerala is too large, and Kerala *AND* social work related articles is probably not implemented. Perhaps range blocking Pathanamthitta, Kerala, India. Population 37,538. As the IP's edits often geolocate (~75%) to Pathanamthitta, blocking that range might alleviate some of the problem. Jim1138 (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS COMMENT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE RAISED AGAINST TIMOTHY.It is an reply to Jim's non-relevant ANI comment. Jim1138 actions are like a wolf in sheep's clothing their intent is very clear, I normally wp:deny his case. Maybe for some its easy to look through this edit and identify which is which, i am not so-it becomes a bit confusing when answering; the comments are only given spaces to answer them clearly so where does refactoring comes in or is it an excuse to somehow pin down the ip editor. Reading Diannaa's comment states "I should have read your post more closely." from the editor itself and the conversation seems to end with civility and integrity.- so what is this soul trying to pin is unclear. There is an another ANI going on to topic ban this editor who seem to have unreal convictions about social work and engage in subsequent disruptive actions which clearly indicates WP:NOTHERE. I don't know why racism is mentioned in this[71] Racism:Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person's social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. and the actions seems to show clearly when the editor asks to initiate a wiki-ban for Kerala is from a sense of superiority and considering others as inferior and the definition might extend to the rest of the part only jim1138 and the other editor knows what transpired there. But the definition seems to fit in some places very well and this is an antisocial behavior. I myself ask others insight when i am not sure - this is to learn, understand and collaborate if possible, and it is a positive learning behavior. This doesn't warrant for wp:deny, it warrants when edits have reached to a level of absurdity as the editor have displayed in the social work article.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also a thing: making inappropriate comments and then disparaging their own inappropriate comments as being from someone else. Doesn't pass the duck test...i.e. another random IP from a different person engaging in discussion on user talks related to disruption on Social work.
    I wasn't a part of this when it originally started, so I can't speak to that, but for my part I put a bit of effort into assuming good faith. If you are being blamed for others' disruption, register an account and clear up the whole issue, voila. This has been suggested a dozen or more times. Their persistent refusal to do something so easy says to me either 1) they are avoiding registration purposefully to sew confusion, and/or 2) they are a previously blocked user and expect their account would be quickly blocked as evasionary. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    May I say that I partially concur with the Jim's nature to that of a racist and I guess it would might be right and why I too feel is explained in that comment. I am seeing blocks initiated in admin action page along with your request most of them were right like for deleting entire pages and adding silly words. injecting names in between the articles...etc. Most of this is done in a second. Mostly this also seems by having good faith with the editor who requests them, this is the loop hole you used. When such practice is present how can someone who witness' this register. But if you ask directly your question about the edits i would say it is mine or it is not. But is this the problem over social work page.-No. What is your comment on recent irrelevant shrine upgrading in the talk page. See my edit:[72] would have stopped this childish play. If your intentions were to solve the issue and not to express your dislike to ip editors work, this wouldn't have happened. Good luck and please don't drag the real talk to something-else to distract other editors.61.0.77.81 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well timothy's abusive actions seems to flyover with co-conspiring editors discussion for block.(probably a witch hunt) I hope the work here is clearly seen by other skilled editors. If timothy's actions are considered as a good practice those in the higher ranks please inform and with a patient valid reasoning, so that i may move on with understanding to other issues. If not, move with what should be done. By looking at the protection blocks don't be misguided those were initiated by abuse of good faith with the blocking editors.-But they did solve the indifference and hostility of all the other involved registered editors. Going through the both sides the issue is clearly seen. Even you can see the new player FIM who doesnt have anything to do with this page injects themselves to avenge because earlier my ip wasnt blocked and this made the editor possibly uncomfortable and there seems similar sort of history with others claims, the problem is not with edits or the actions but origin of edits and wiki-status as an ip-editor- this is what the registered editors are communicating in one way or other. In my viewpoint this is clear violation to what wikipedia stands for and for the same I try to fend-off this disruptive editors.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One may think the abuse ends here see the history and unobstructed griefer behaviors:[73] now you know the intention behind the block.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me. Are we meant to believe that these two tag teaming IPs (User:117.248.62.212 and User:61.0.77.81) are actually different people?! Unbelievable. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That is pretty funny. It seems like these two may have previous WP experience...I wonder...TJH2018talk 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Spoiler, we've found the first documented case of Dissociative identity disorder Wikipedia editing. They are the same person, but they aren't. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well nobody said this two ip's are two, is there a claim as such, if so provide where the ______ are you(@ FIM and TJH2018) getting these ideas. Not from this section I am sure or is this continuation of your unchecked pranks. Plus Timothoy we might have a dispute on your actions but grow up before joining with those two disruptors...I am this kind of person (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:22), but not upto 70, keep pushing the buttons to make your actions more clear. Above all a social worker should know how to behave, especially a disciplined(army brat you say) social worker otherwise you are showing lack of basic knowledge in the practice. If your lying-its o.k.-its your deal. If you really are a social worker go back to the books....so that it wouldn't hurt your clients. If the spoiler thing was projection do dial down otherwise which school taught you PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, ASSESSMENT and above all ETHICS. I should have picked it with the roping reference. 61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Let me give you an advice any social worker requires to be fair, stick to values and truthful this is just a piece of the bigger picture and I think if you can follow these you can be a good wikipedian too. Values in the wikipedian sense means good practice and policies. Good luck.61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us stop this silly bickering too, if the raised issue is not looked or taken action by any admins there is a good chance that this will slip through so everyone negatively involved shouldn't worry about it. If any actions taken challenge it or ask the reasoning and move on. Plus, there seems nothing to explain about the issue everything is out here-who is who and what they did and do. I hope this ANI will be included in the social work talk page for the see of other Admins and editors.61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it's been fun folks. Looks like this thread too is not going to result in any permanent solution. I suppose we'll see you all back here in two months when the semi expires. TimothyJosephWood 19:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This is the fourth ANI on this matter. This is a repost of previous ANI tickets listed above.
    1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#IP-hopping, edit-warring, trolling, and_vandalism filed 3 March 2016
    2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Disruptive_editing, edit-warring, and_vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India filed 2 April 2016
    3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920#IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution. filed13 April 2016
    Jim1138 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "originally now residing in from of the U.S. state of "

    Might not be the place for this, but can't think where else to put it.

    An anon, trying to help has added the phrase "originally now residing in from of the U.S. state of " in front the state of birth of various US public figures through many of the "XXXX in the United States" articles... quite some time ago. Unpicking this will take ages. Are there automated tools that can do it? Or some special wand someone can wave that I don't know about? Trey Maturin (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, we can use mass rollback, but we need the IP. ;-) Katietalk 16:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If the IP is dynamic, what happens to the edits made under it before that particular individual operated it, and likewise, what about if he moved on to another address (which I'm guessing he probably did, as on one IP his edits stop in November 2015)? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So I happened to be bored enough to go back and check through and I found this problem all the way back in the early 1800's and leading up to the late 1990's at least. I didn't check each and every year but I checked a pretty strong sampling maybe thirty or so. (Yeah it's a slow day at work.) The IP does appear to be dynamic so I don't know if there's an easy fix for it. Jlahnum (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed 21 instancs of this, and no new ones are showing up in a search, so perhaps they're all gone now? BMK (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed 16 instances. Hopefully, that's all! --Tribe of Tiger (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I also removed several instances (manually; not sure how many, count went I started was 102). Pretty sure they're all gone now. —0xF8E8 (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    So, there are more. Do a search on "originally now residing" and they'll come up. BMK (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I have manually gone through every "(year) in the United States" article from 1789 to 2016 and removed all instances of the phrase and its variants; I cleaned up some anomalies at the same time. BMK (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Questionable editing?

    The editor Robsinden appears to be removing relevant content from navboxes and articles. From navboxes, text that is pertinent, but not in redlink form is being removed. For examples, please see:

    I've notified user that redlinks are permissible as stated in Wikipedia:EXISTING. That policy states, "Red links can be retained in navigation templates". Would like opinions of admins. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you show us the discussions you've had with the user in question regarding this issue? Can you also show us prior attempts at dispute resolution such as an RFC or other method of bringing in outside voices? --Jayron32 17:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayron32: I've left posts at two article talk pages. However, in reviewing other edits by the user I wasn't sure if they warrant attention by an administrator. The two talk pages are:
    In regards to using RFC or other voices, I posted this for a cursory review of edits of user on several or more articles or templates. Not one or two particular articles or templates. Thanks for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, first of all, I wasn't notified about this discussion. I'm not sure how anyone could miss the instructions regarding this, but there you go. It seems the op is unaware of many of our policies and guidelines. Secondly, I'm not sure how tidying up wayward navboxes in line with navbox conventions, guidelines and prior consensus earns me the title of "Navbox Warrior". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wish there was a way your edits did not cause so many problems and so much distress.--Moxy (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues to add a site they appear to be associated with. Was also editing under 202.163.125.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I had created a report at WT:WPSPAM#trypophobia.co prior to seeing the report here. The accounts are adding two different URLs (to two different articles), and both URLs are tracing back to the same IP address. Appears a clear case of spam/site-promotion. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      • 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.[74] 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)[reply]
    • 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: [75], [76], [77], [78]. 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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: [79]. 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 [80], 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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: [81]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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 [82]. 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 [83]. This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title [84] and edit-warring [85], [86] 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 [87]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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[88] that his article sets the standard for writing articles on Bach compositions.) Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Re. Softlavender's "... making snarky comments on the talk page (Francis started the snark and attacks [89], 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)[reply]
    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: [90] [91], [92] 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)[reply]

    Proposal: Temporary topic ban

    Per Mathsci's analysis and proposal above [93], [94]: Francis Schonken is topic-banned for six months from Bach's sacred music, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL 25,000-byte talk-page post [96]. Always a sign of a collaborative editor. And yes, restoring it less than 6 hours ago shows the disruption has not stopped [97]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    No. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Would you be open to formal third party mediation Francis? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (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 [98][99] is not a substitute. Mathsci (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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 [100]. 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)[reply]
    Yes, something like that seems reasonable. I've only seen a little of this. Mathsci (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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 (やや) 14:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support Voceditenore proposal: much tighter, less wriggle-room, more likely to work. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    2.25.129.11's disruptive editing

    2.25.129.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive editing for quite some time now. They go back to late April. This IP has been constantly adding the episode order a cast appears in a show per season most notably on Criminal Minds and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit's season pages, which disregards WP:TVCAST. They are most active on Criminal Minds (season 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). They've been warned about their editing; and they have been reverted by other users besides me. They have not engaged in any conversation to build consensus. They only edit war by adding their edit on and on. If any diffs are required, please let me know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 00:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:AN3 may be a better place to address these concerns. 172.56.42.13 (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP has continued with their disruptive editing, such as here. Can someone please block them? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 16:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of userpage polemics

    I don't think it's any secret that there is bad blood between WilliamJE and Nyttend. Last November I removed this [101] and this [102] after being approached by Nyttend about it. Discussion here: [103] [104] and more on my talkpage [105] et seq. Nyttend asked that WilliamJE be blocked for this. I declined, and after receiving no response from WilliamJE to requests by myself and Sphilbrick I went ahead and removed the commentary in accordance with WP:POLEMIC. Today I was again approached by Nyttend [106], who pointed out content that was added in November [107] by WiilliamJE and asking that WilliamJE be blocked. This content was added about the time that Jehochman warned [108] WilliamJE about their behavior toward Nyttend . I have removed this commentary as well. WilliamJE's response to this [109] [110] is an over-the-top expression of a sustained grudge against Nyttend that is far outside the bounds of acceptable irritation or venting. WilliamJE alludes to some sort of recent interaction between them that I have not yet discovered: there is a history of back-and-forth and allegations of edit-stalking on geographical content between them, but it had been my impression that that had largely died down. I haven't found anything recent.

    I have long been concerned about WilliamJE's grudge-cherishing. He's a productive editor and I wish he could let this go but it keeps coming up every few months. The level of antipathy on WilliamJE's part against Nyttend and others is a source of continuing concern. The vituperation he posted today on my talkpage is block-worthy, but I think community consensus is called for in this case given the intensely personalized attitude that's being exhibited. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't found anything recent, either. Today, I thought I'd seen him go back to following me: I checked Special:Contributions/Nyttend for some reason, and I noticed that WilliamJE had edited one page I'd just edited, but a quick review of his other contributions demonstrated that he'd been editing a group of related pages, and it was a pure coincidence. This reminded me of the userpage polemic; I looked at his userpage and saw that the same type of content was once again present on his userpage. Note that everything discussed above is talking about his words regarding me; the diffs demonstrate WilliamJE's grudge toward Orlady, who's not been particularly active lately (just 22 edits in the last year, including just 2 in the last month), and even toward DangerousPanda, who hasn't edited since the era of his arbitration case in 2014! Now...When you post this kind of content on your userpage, sanctions are entirely reasonable, and it's merciful merely to remove the content with a firm warning. When you re-post it months later, and when sanctions are requested you continue saying the same kind of stuff, you've demonstrated that you don't care about the warning and that the mercy wasn't warranted. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just going by the evidence linked from here: Y'all should let sleeping dogs lie. Nyttend should not be seeking a block for a post made in November, and User:Acroterion shouldn't be entertaining it. The last diff I see mentioning those other two users is from November and does NOT demonstrate a grudge against them. The recent diffs are a response to Nyttend and Acroterion poking him - refusing to let sleeping dogs lie. And WilliamJE didn't take kindly or respond calmly to the poking. Jehochman, what is seeking a block for a post made in November, if not the hounding you asked to be alerted of? Jehochman, warned, "Please don't interact with Nyttend at all from now on." and I don't see diffs showing he's ignored that. I've no basis on which to believe or disbelieve the accusations against Nyttend; I haven't looked into them and will let sleeping dogs lie. --Elvey(tc) 22:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If I was going to block WilliamJE I would have done so by now,and I reject the notion that it's OK to maintain a shrine to a grudge if nobody notices it, nor is it acceptable to respond to its removal in such a manner once it is noticed. It was replaced as a scaled-back version of what I removed in October, after a direct warning not to keep such material in userspace from three separate administrators. I agree that there's no current interaction problem between Nyttend and WilliamJE, and I hope that continues. I am, however, concerned that WilliamJE's response to what Elvey calls my "poking" is far beyond tolerable indignation: diatribes of that kind are never acceptable. Enmity of that sort needs to be brought to the community's attention to ensure that it is not repeated. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you. All I'm saying is that Nyttend should not have sought a block today for a post made in November, and User:Acroterion shouldn't have entertained it. --Elvey(tc) 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    JMO, as I've interacted with both editors at various times, I must point out that preserving diffs against future repeats of behavior has, in some cases, been upheld as appropriate. That said, I think that ibans and the like between editors do lead to WP:BAITing and poking, which is why I tend to disfavor them. I do think we need a statute of limitations on ANI; if something happened in November and no one noticed until now, it is not worth noticing until there is an active case, at which time it could be an appropriate diff. But not now. Frankly, though I seldom am a fan of "they're both at fault," I do think in this case it's time to just tell both of them to drop the stick. Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have little faith in interaction bans either, and both of them dropping it is something Sphilbrick and I have advocated to both editors, with some effect, I like to think. Part of my reason for bringing it up here was WilliamJE's allusion to a recent event, which I was unable to find, nor, apparently, is anyone else. Perhaps we can hope that this is the last gasp of outrage. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so we can ignore the stuff from November. Is there any excuse for the statements made on Acroterion's talk page in the last couple of days? Is there any reason to say that Acroterion is wrong in considering those comments block-worthy? It's time to stop tolerating users who accuse others of lying, and call my actions a reign of terror. Time to start enforcing NPA/CIVIL. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (nb): I'm out of town tomorrow at a project site and will be mostly off-line for 24-36 hours, so I'll have no further input. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend just above asks that we not tolerate an editor who accuses another editor of lying. He uses this[111] and this[[112]] as his evidence. In the first one I write- "threat to get me blocked by lying to another administrator" and in the second I write "He was perfectly willing to lie to get me blocked". Let's address the second statement first. It is referring to the first not anything else about Nyttend. As for first- I write to ge me blocked by lying. What is my basis for that statement. Here it is, and Nyttend knows it, because it was in the very section of my User page he wanted me to get blocked for.
    He wrote[113]- "Your stalking of me, moreover, is not appreciated and will result in a request for sanctions, especially as you have been blocked in the past for harassing me. He is going to request I be blocked for harassing him since I had been blocked in the past for doing so. That is absolutely untrue and Nyttend knows it and he threatened to use it as the basis for me being blocked again. Orlady said here[114] that she never said I was harassing Nyttend and then Nyttend follows up here[115] saying- "Kindly read the first paragraph of Logical disjunction. "A or B" doesn't mean "A", and "Harassment or personal attacks" doesn't mean "Harassment",.
    To sum things up Nyttend threatened to get me sanctioned for reasons he himself acknowledges to be untrue. Then he accuses me above that I said he was a liar when I didn't. I accused him of threatening me by lying. Should we be discussing Nyttend's behavior more thoroughly?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Elvey and lightly trout Nyttend for requesting a block over a 6 month old edit. Nyttend should know better. The purpose of blocks is to stop ongoing disruption and a situation that's been quiet for 6 months is not that.

      WilliamJE, it will be helpful if you can keep it more civil going forward. Could you do that please? If you've got a grievance with another editor, you either have to co-exist with them (staying out of their way to the extent possible is a good plan); or try to talk out the problems calmly (mediation can help); or if you must, pursue dispute resolution where you describe the problems factually and document them with diffs. I don't know what the underlying issue is between you, so can't comment on it. Others here might know more of the backstory than I do.

      And no we don't need a "statute of limitations"-- we have too many "statutes" already. We need common-sense editing that deals with disruption when it's happening but doesn't sweat over ancient history except as a means of documenting that a current problem isn't new. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • 50.0.121.79 and Elvey, please bear in mind that this wasn't merely some long-ago edit; this was content sitting on WilliamJE's userpage until twenty-seven hours ago. I only linked the six-months-ago edit as firm evidence that it had been added back intentionally by WilliamJE; it would be absurd to seek sanctions against someone for restoring problematic content if it had been restored by accident or restored by someone else. Moreover, when this thread was raised, the statement in question was still on his userpage. There's a significant difference between seeking a block for a one-time statement from months ago and seeking a block for maintaining problematic content for a period of months, especially when part of maintaining that content is ongoing disruption by means of accusations of "lying" and "reign of terror". If I'm wrong, please explain why any user might be permitted to retain this kind of content on a userpage for a period of six months. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nytend, yes, that post was there til recently but the offending edit was made in November. You're asking for two different responses: 1) revert the edit (apparently already done), and 2) block WilliamJE[116]. It's quite possible to consider them separately. #1 is fine and has been handled. #2 is blocking over some lame invective posted 6 months ago. That's a separate matter and isn't justified given how stale it is. I'm tired now but can try to look at the background a little more tomorrow if anyone thinks that might help. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove the content (if it hasnt already) and enact an interaction ban. It shouldnt be a problem to Nyttend (as he is already using the correct method for dealing with someone like that, notifying an administrator) and it would prevent WilliamJE from using their page as a book of grudges. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the material from WilliamJE's userpage, which is what precipitated the attack on Nyttend on my talkpage. I'm going to remove the attack there too. Consensus is plain that users can't keep stuff like that around in their userspace, and that WilliamJE is not exempt. If this happens again, community sanctions are appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Nyttend: Please don't interact with WilliamJE at all from now on. (Matches the extant "Please don't interact with Nyttend at all from now on.") --Elvey(tc) 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: Struck in appropriate "Done" template: Elvey is not an admin and has no place giving orders. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
    Admins have no place giving orders either, now that you mention it. EEng 23:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend: Really? Is there any excuse? You were already offered two explanations - firstly that the two of you poked him with a very untimely block threat - but you seem unwilling to hear it. And secondly that you did say "you have been blocked in the past for harassing me" to him, even though he offers a quote that (unless fabricated) make it clear to me that what you said wasn't true. (AFAIK, this goes unacknowledged by you.) It's good that you say you're willing to drop the stick and walk away (from the November stuff, at least.) Now, please actually do drop the stick and walk away! It would be good if you recognized that you should not have claimed that that diff mentioning those other two users from November demonstrated a grudge against them then, let alone now, rather than continuing to call for sanctions. It seems WilliamJE has wisely stayed away from this thread. You would do well to do as Acroterion, Sphilbrick and I have advocated and drop it.--Elvey(tc) 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you consider your reaction if, months from now, you find that I have been since May maintaining fiercely critical comments on my userpage that disparage you for defending WilliamJE. Since you appear convinced that it's untimely to seek sanctions for maintaining such comments in userspace until the present, and convinced that I need a self-imposed interaction ban, I won't waste further time on digging up the diffs to answer your charges about edits that were made years ago, especially because edits from last November (which is much more recently than the comments you're bringing up) are too old to warrant any action. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have thought maintaining meant periodically updating something etc. If I wrote an article last November and then it sat there untouched for 6 months, I wouldn't call that maintaining. Nyttend, I don't have any beef with you--I've seen you around here taking care of routine stuff competently as far as I could tell, but I never had strong or memorable impressions one way or the other (i.e. you'll have to work much harder if you really want to establish a reign of terror). This persistence isn't making you look good though.

    FWIW: WilliamJE has engaged in a bit more discussion and posted some diffs on his user talk page. There is an unhealthy level of anger underlying them IMHO but they don't have the invective of those old posts from a while back. He's away til tomorrow and I'm away starting tomorrow, but it could be helpful if Elvey or someone else could continue talking with him. Maybe some of his issues can be worked out. FWIW, among his gripes is an old block log entry that he's still upset about. People do often resent those things pretty much forever. So Wikipedia bureaucracy screws up another one. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected stealth canvassing / meatpuppetry

    My recent request as follows to User:Hchc2009 made to his talk page on 21:27 13 May 2016 [117] ("Editing patterns") has not received an answer as I requested:

    "Your recent edits on Kirkham House (15:23, 8 May 2016‎), The Grange, Broadhembury (06:46, 10 May 2016‎ ), Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury (06:46, 10 May 2016); John Wadham (died 1578) (06:28, 12 May 2016‎); Manor of Orleigh (11:17, 13 May 2016‎) display signs and edit patterns which might reasonably be interpreted as contravening certain of Wikipedia's policies. This message is not an accusation of any contravention, but merely a request for clarification of the position".

    I should be grateful to have some admin oversight to this matter, which also concerns User:Smalljim. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

    As a disinterested party- in that (I'd like to think) I get on with both Lobs and Hchc- I've got to say, I think this is a really bad idea. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As someone uninvolved in the above-mentioned issues, and having looked them over, I must say that this request is preposterous. There are WP editors who are here to do good, encyclopedic work. And there are WP editors who are here to follow their every whim, and then generate time-wasting drama when their editing is checked. I think it's clear who's who. Eric talk 13:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you can now address the specific matter I have raised? If you think the editing patterns I have raised are pure coincidence, say so. Otherwise let's at least make it appear that WP rules are there to be followed and sanctions applied where appropriate.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) To be honest, I wouldn't have responded to your accusations if they'd been posted on my talk page. Despite the wording it does come off as quite stand-offish. You just threw out a bunch of accusations at the two users who seem to have been here a while. Even with the edits you are referencing I'm not seeing anything that is glaringly out of policy. If anything I'm seeing some WP:OWN issues from the OP. And I don't think this quite meets the standard for Stealth Canvasing. But thats just me. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really sorry, it's so impertinent of me to raise a matter concerning two users who "seem to have been here a while", and one of whom is an admin. - who by the way has form in stealth canvassing. He has just brought to my attention an egregious stealth canvass he made on 9 November 2013 to a fellow admin who had closed a AN/I report not to his liking. [118] He immediately afterwards made a WP:STEALTH WP:CANVASS approach to him (here), unknown to me until now, in which he asked him (Kim Dent-Brown): "Any chance you could reword the AN/I closure to balance things up a bit?", as he has now revealed in Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury (20:14, 10 May 2016), which he characterised as "a brief conversation". Is it OK for an Admin who has been ruled against in an AN/I to surreptitiously approach the AN/I closure admin and ask for a more favourable conclusion? This he did without informing me, which seems to be stealth canvassing. But, hey, I'm just a mere junior around here. I should have got the message when one of Hchc's mates posted on his talk page "You did like check out his background before slapping this message down, right? Hchc's got 54,000 edits - including bringing Henry I of England, Stephen I of England, and John of England to FA status. He's not a sockpuppet. He started editing in 2009 for the sake of the gods." I was under the impression that all are equal here and nobody is above WP policies. If I'm wrong on that, let's shut down this request and just put it down to the naivite of a greenhorn. I've cited 5 instances of prima facie evidence for a reasonable person to suspect that something is amiss, but that's just dismissed here as "throwing out a bunch of accusations". The two parties concerned (User:Hchc2009 and User:Smalljim) seem immune from coming here and giving their explanation, so it seems? They have been notified in the proper way.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

    Please revoke talkpage access

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


    Please can you revoke the talkpage access of User:LeonRaper? He was blocked for only being here to self-promote, and no evidence of competency, and all he's done since being blocked is spout his same promotional arguments. He doesn't understand that he fails WP:GNG, and shows no evidence of ever stopping his complaints unless his talkpage access is revoked. Frankly, editors have wasted too much time on him already. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    OPPOSE: this elderly individual is firm in his belief that he is notable (it is an erroneous belief in regards to Wikipedia notability) but he only keeps restating this belief because others keep responding and telling him that he's not....if people stop, he'll stop...I just very recently tried to change the topic to see if he'd be interested in editing other articles, like "swing dancing"...see how that goes...no need to revoke his talk page...he may grow to understand, and make an unblock request to work on other articles...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not being disruptive, he is talking. If you don't want it popping up on your watchlist, take his page off your watchlist. Please allow editors to determine when they have spent to much time and then they can walk away. -- GB fan 13:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just leaving his talkpage, and him, alone is a much better solution to the problem, if there even is a problem. Thomas.W talk 14:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose it should be a last resort to remove talk page access from a blocked user. As was said earlier, if you don't like the ramblings don't stay around and listen. He's not bothering anyone other than those reading his page. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I understand where Joseph2302 is coming from. I, too, was becoming annoyed that LeonRaper doesn't seem to be able or want to get what's being told him. I caught myself in the middle of a response to him and deleted it without posting, simply removing his talk page from my watchlist. I think that's the best course for everyone. If LeonRaper wants to continue to participate in a constructive way, all the information he needs is there on his talk page, he just has to choose to follow it. In the meantime, just let him alone. He's indef blocked, and I doubt very much that any admin is going to unblock him once they look at the circumstances surrounding the block, and at LeonRaper's comments. Unless he starts being disruptive in some way, removing his talk page access doesn't seem like a necessary step. BMK (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now, but only if Raper does not simply start posting personal attacks against other editors or pointless rants against Wikipedia. I am frustrated like all of the others who have tried to help Raper. I am not only frustrated with him because he seems unwilling to or is incapable of understanding what other editors are posting, but also in myself because I can't figure out a way to explain things to him any better. I've tried rephrasing things in so many different ways that I have lost count. I also have tried changing the topic quite few times by pointing out there are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia as suggested above, but I have not been very successful. Perhaps 68.48.241.158 will have better luck. The simple fact is that Raper is a SPA (not necessarily a bad thing as I tried to explain to him 13 days ago) whose only goal seems to be to have "my webpage" (his choice of wording) added to Wikipedia. We can all speculate on why that is the case and I have some ideas, but I don't see him shifting gears and simply go on editing other articles. He feels he's "mega notable" in the dance world which he equates to Wikipedia notability. He also seems to think that Wikipedia is some sort of publishing house with in-house editors and reviewers and all he needs is for his sources to be given to the right people. I don't think that any of that is going to change regardless of how many times he's told otherwise, so maybe it's time to honor his request and avoid further antagonizing things any more by bringing it up. Maybe an accelerated version of WP:SO can be used here instead of waiting six-months. Raper seems to feel the need to "talk" with someone in a position of authority so perhaps we should let the admin who blocked him (pinging @Drmies:) have a go at trying one last time to explain things. Maybe "Hi I am the administrator who blocked you. Here is why I blocked you. Here are the conditions you need to agree to be unblocked. Do you agree to these conditions on the understanding that you will be blocked again if you violate them in any way?" or something like that. The conditions could be something like "Complete the Wikipedia Adventure", "Make ten constructive edits in existing Wikipedia articles", "Agree to not personally create a new article about yourself per WP:COI", Agree to not add any content about yourself to any existing without first discussing it on the article's talk page per WP:COI", etc. If Raper is given clear conditions on what he needs to agree to in order to be unblocked and then he still continues on his present course, then he will clearly not be here for anything other than himself and can be left alone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marchjuly: I am not sure he would be likely to make 10 good edits. Based on some comments like this "can't remember what Wikipedia page it was, but I sent in a correction to how to do St. Louis Shag. My definition is absolutely correct. I learned it from Kenny Wetzel in 1974 after I saw Mike Faile from St. Louis doing it in the 1974 World Swing Dance Championships which I was in."[119] he thinks what he knows and because he knows it is sufficient rather than citing a reliable source. I do not think he has any better grasp of the need for reliable sources than he does of notability and we would soon be here for that. JbhTalk 01:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that is a possibility, but this could be his WP:LASTCHANCE. 10 good edits would not be a something which is impossible to achieve. A good edit could be something as simple as a spelling correction and then leaving an appropriate edit sum, so it should be something fairly easy to accomplish if he has the desire to do so. If he makes an inappropriate edit, it can be reverted. If he continues to make bad edits and refuse to listen, then he can be blocked again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not opposed to the attempt particularly if he were willing to accept some informal mentoring from an editor he respects. I just have not seen any indication he is willing to be educated in how Wikipedia works. I think he still believes we are some publishing service and he is a customer owed service. Maybe it is stubornness, maybe he is only in it for self-promotion, maybe there are CIR issues. Oh well... whatever it is it is moot unless he files an unblock request.

    It might be worthwhile to talk him through how to request an unblock since the need to request one may have been lost in all of the post-block discussions. Not something I am willing to do in this case but I thought it worth mentioning if you or someone else wants to step into the breach. JbhTalk 01:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Meh Blocked users are only suposed to use their talk page to apeal their block. and he is not doing that. There is something to be said for letting him wind down on his own but I do not think he is suddenly going to come to understand the points people have been trying to make for days or weeks. That said he is doing no harm where he is and there is no need to remove access just for the sake of process. JbhTalk 01:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose How editors choose to use their time, whether wastefully or productively, is up to them. Like MarchJuly, I've also struggled to phrase things in a way that will help him understand. However, they are not doing it from any malice or disruption. Although, as Jbhunley says, talk pages are only for appealing blocks, after the blocking, it's not much good appealing a block without understanding the rationale behind the block. Blackmane (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Extra eyes on Yuri Kochiyama

    Today's Google Doodle has brought lots of attention to the Yuri Kochiyama article. It's already been semi-protected due to blatant vandalism, but there is currently a dispute (which I'm about to disengage myself from) regarding the language used to described Kochiyama's activism (e.g., describing her as non-black supporter of Black separatism vs Black nationalism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically Hoax Article?

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


    not sure if right place for this..there's a RfC going on here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_supremacy wherein people are literally arguing that white supremacy is racist whereas black supremacy is not racist...I took a look at the topic itself though...I think it is basically made-up and perhaps largely contributed to by some of the people making the ridiculous arguments in the RfC...if search google news for "black supremacy" absolutely nothing comes up...if search google web get a few superficial uses of the term....is this just a matter for RfD? If so, I'll have to look into how to do that...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Its a content dispute... Looking at the RfC it seems to have meaningful discussion in progress. What exactly is it you want done? It doesn't seem to be a hoax to me... --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, but it appears the article shouldn't exist at all (see the final few posts in the RfC related to this)..someone appears to have gathered a few groups together in one article, decided on their own to label these groups "black supremacism" and created a Wikipedia article...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then AfD it. AN/I is for behavioral disputes, not content disputes. BMK (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like there is good discussion going on on the talk page there, which is the way that issues like this should be handled. It's definitely not a hoax article, and the discussion on the page should be used to better flush out how the language on the page should read. I don't think there is any need for admin activity on this at this time, the community is doing exactly what SHOULD be done, talking it out civilly on the talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC) (replacing comment that was accidently deleted)[reply]
    no, no I agree as far as the content dispute...but in engaging in that I came to realize that perhaps the article shouldn't even exist at all (and was created totally against policy)!! I thought if an Admin saw this they might be able to handle that more quickly, competently as I've never done a RfD..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not going to happen. Nobody seriously disputes the the concept of black supremacy exists—even if it arguably only exists as a meme among paranoid white people rather than an actual movement—and we don't delete articles on grounds of being badly written. We certainly don't delete one of Wikipedia's earliest articles, dating back to Larry Sanger's time, out-of-process without a deletion discussion following a request at ANI. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    but the article creates its own concept of "black supremacy" by just putting a bunch of groups together and arbitrarily deciding to label these particular groups "black supremacy"...there's no sourcing for this whatsoever...It's pure original research/original opinion ideas!! See what I mean?68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then discuss this on the talk page, NOT here. ANI isn't for content disputes, as stated earlier. This is an issue that the page needs to be better cited or cleaned up, not an issue for ANI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    see, I'm not seeing this as a content dispute but as an article that itself exists clearly against policy..so thought might be worth admin attention, even speedy deletion type thing...I only referenced the content dispute to explain how I became aware of this...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well two of the best things about wikipedia are WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY SO if it makes the community/project better we can ignore a specific policy in favor of bettering the project. As far as I can tell the article has a valid topic worth being noted. We don't get rid of something because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want to get rid of the article you are going to need to do an AfD and develop consensus that it needs to go. No editor or admin (At least I don't think they would) delete it against consensus or while there is ongoing meaningful discussion as to the article's existence, except under a few extreme circumstances. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I say just rename the article black racism. While Black supremacy or structural racism might not be a thing (except in Zimbabwe), there are clearly groups that thing Blacks are superior and hate other. Read, for instance, Elijah Muhammads Message to the Black man in America and its chapter on whites.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting way out of ANI's remit now, but "supremacy" and "racism" aren't synonyms. There are plenty of attitudes that don't imply inferiority but are clearly racist ("Asians are harder workers" and so forth). ‑ Iridescent 20:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is supremacy can be an observed structure, such as, for instance, white supremacy in the US South in the 1920s. Racism can be an attitude or ideology. Elijah Muhammad and others created a belief system that believed blacks were superior. You could call that black supremacy, but that wouldn't be supremacy as in blacks can observationally be proven to be dominant in society or are systematically violating other ethnic groups rights. The only place were that could be said to happen is in Zimbabwe. (Of course, different black groups has fought and discriminated against each other in places like Haiti, Liberia, Rwanda, and you might include the killing of Arab during the Zanzibar "revolution", but that is not what we are talking about here.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    We have ourselves a situation where someone has decided on their own that several different groups should be known as "black supremcism," and created a Wikipedia article (that is disasterously put together) based on their arbitrary belief...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest at this point it's time to put down the stick and walk away. This is NOT the venue for the discussion of deletiing the page. If you feel this page should be deleted, have a look at WP:AFD and the instructions on how to do so there. If there is information in the article that shouldn't be there you feel, discuss it on the talk page. NOTHING is going to be done on ANI however, please understand that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that the IP editor has already brought several topics here, and has been told multiple times to drop the stick. We are reaching sanction level. I ask that an admin look into this IP editor's battleground behavior. --Tarage (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, perhaps I'll see if it's worth doing a AfD...the reason I asked is the article itself seems to be against policy..that is, it's about a topic that doesn't seem to exist in the real world (and that can be cited to sources as to even existing) but seemed to be invented for the sake of creating a Wikipedia article...the content question that is being discussed in the page is entirely separate issue...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:66.235.36.153 seems to be a Single-purpose account that has been making disruptive edits and large, undiscussed deletions in the articles related to the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. I think this editor should be blocked.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have diffs? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs? What do you mean?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See Help:Diff, basically you need to show the edits you are saying are disruptive. You can view page history and then get the diffs from there. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=718953858&oldid=718530856

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=720648062&oldid=720202654

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=703033453&oldid=703004913

    --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a content dispute. Those edits are not all from the same time, and IP is commenting in summary. I would like talk page discussions, from all, but this could be solved using proper dispute resolution processes, not AN/I. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    CEOBryantR

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


    User talk:CEOBryantR also needs to be blocked as it is apparently just a PR firm used to handle Dre Rich Kidd. It contravenes Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, Wikipedia:Advertising, Wikipedia:Ownership of content--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dre Rich Kidd is clearly heading for deletion, which will give CEOBryantR nothing to edit. BMK (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the editor's statement that he works for a major record label and that his job is to get their artists (including Dre Rich Kidd) onto Wikipedia: [120] Here is his request to protect the page showing ownership and his connection to the performer [121] Has removed the AFD notice [122], the entire AFD [123], and maintenance templates [124] Meters (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Article snow deleted by Iridescent. BMK (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Salted as well. BMK (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Baseball bugs and FPAS harassing me

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


    Today, I received a malicious message on Facebook signed by two people, one of them saying that he's baseball bugs, and the other saying that he's FPAS. I don't know how they found out my real identity, but anyways the message contained a legal threat because of my on-wiki activity. Can something be done about this, cuz I'm really scared of returning to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.213.174 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Even in the vanishingly unlikely event that this is true (BB and FPAS live on opposite sides of the world) Facebook is not a part of Wikipedia. If you've received an abusive message on Facebook, report it to their abuse department. ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: This is an obvious proxy IP Ref. Desk troll that I've reported to WP:AIV. They'll be blocked shortly. 2607:FB90:8038:780A:0:25:9B1B:1401 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is at least the third time in recent memory that a ref-desk troll has posted lies about being harassed off-wiki. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots22:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... it's sad that they have nothing else to do with their life... 2607:FB90:8038:780A:0:25:9B1B:1401 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No big deal, just another gnat to swat. In this case, it's only the one entry, so the admins might not bother blocking it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots22:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The troll made a similar complaint about FPAS on about April 15, and as 74.73.255.60 (talk · contribs)on May 8 about Jayron32 allegedly telephoning him.[125] Those are admins. He's probably dragging me into it because of a revert war that he was involved with on the ref desk talk page a day or two ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots23:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, everyone needs a hobby. ... I never said it was a good one. HalfShadow 23:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The April 15 incident was from 108.29.169.88 (talk · contribs), since rev-del'd as I think it included a false claim of a threat of violence from an admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots23:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Single-purpose account circumventing block

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


    The user Mikequfv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Today, with the block still active, he is doing the same style of disruptive editing and vandalizing climate charts with erroneous numbers,[126] from an IP address. 2001:569:BDD4:2700:F1D2:5191:2484:1E06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (Every edit is a good example of past behaviour linking him to this IP.) Vandalism report from yesterday: [127]. (The reason given for the block was different than the reason reported.) Air.light (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked the IP temporarily, extended Mikequfv's block to indef. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 00:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit-Warrior at Jim Morrison

    WP:SPA Poofdragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is edit-warring to insert odd, in some cases WP:BLP-dicey content at Jim Morrison. Diff:[128] . The user is claiming it's "sourced" as they are inserting bare urls of blogs, fanzines, google search results and interviews with human-interest reporters at small town newspapers in place of stable content sourced to books on major publishing houses, which they are deleting. I have attempted to explain WP:RS and WP:IRS and have now warned them three times, but they refuse to engage on either their talk page or the article talk page, insisting in edit summaries every time that they hit "undo" that they are "sourcing." This is the diff they are reverting to:[129]. I could revert again and take them to 3RR, but I'd prefer an uninvolved admin intervene. They seem obsessed with defaming living people mentioned in that article, while pushing the interests of a living person who seems nn to me. There may well be a COI issue here as well, as there often is with SPAs who behave this way. Thanks. - CorbieV 22:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Making this real easy for you @Poofdragon: and adding a ping. - CorbieV 23:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the Jim Morrison page is not sourced properly based on your criteria. Mary Werbelow is undisputedly Jim Morrison's girlfriend in Florida recognized by his bandmate Ray Manzarek in the quote "He was crazy about her" and Bryan Gates called Mary "The love of his life" referring to Jim. [1] Poofdragon (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The place to discuss the relative notability, or lack thereof, of one of Jim Morrison's High School girlfriends was on the talk page of the article, where you refused to engage. Now this is about your refusal to follow Wikipedia policies. Butler is not a credible source, fwiw, but that's not the issue here, your edit-warring is. You've also been reported for violating WP:3RR at that noticeboard now. - CorbieV 23:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to block this WP:SPA. The disruptive editing has veered into personal attacks on WP:BLP subjects in connected articles:[130], along with the 3RR violations and continuing to remove sourced content to dump in google books search results that don't source the content the disruptive SPA is adding. - CorbieV 23:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck no, what he's posting , for example | this link you pointed to in your post above is referenced to a reliable newspaper, and he's accurately paraphrasing what's in that article, as he did in the Jim MOrrison article. I think a boomerang is due. KoshVorlon 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    174.23.128.98

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


    Resolved
     – Blocked for 24 h. Materialscientist (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.23.128.98, who appears to have a problem getting along with others ("Removing shit by stupid rob"[131], "Shithead"[132], "Stop your shit and I will stop"[133], "Die, stupid moron, and leave me alone"[134]) has now stated deleting WP:AIV reports.[135] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Personal attacks and other poor behavior by Thisiashan

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


    User has been making personal attacks and casting aspersions on their talk page ([136], [137], [138], [139]), in screeds on Doug Weller's talk page ([140], [141]). All of this revolves around a huge post on Talk:Antifeminism where the user opines about user motives, gender, Wikipedia, the gender gap, etc. (best seen in this revert here: [142]). I gave a final warning regarding the personal attacks after Acroterion gave them a 3RR template warning (see [143]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This report follows directly after EvergreenFir being reported for harassment, and is a retaliatory action. If you check the timestamps this report directly follows EvergreenFir finding out she has been reported for said harassment. If you actually read these posts, there is absolutely no attempt of defamation, or otherwise personal attacks. Which is precisely why EvergreenFir is making blanket posts of pages in the stead of pointing out the quotes where accused personal attacks take place. EvergreenFir is a Gender Studies major whose personal opinion is getting in the way of maintaining a neutral point of view, and my post on Talk:Antifeminism was topical to the subject, anti-feminism. Gender and gender gap are topical, and the statements were in direct response to unsourced statements which EvergreenFir has chosen are okay simply on the basis of personal appeal. After said 'final warning', no edits have been made, which shows that this is a deliberate attempt to use the Wikipedia system to bully me. Please do not be a tool of harassment for this young lady who is obviously attempting to remove antifeminists who are attempting to discuss the antifeminism page, prior to editing it. If I was feckless, I would be editing the page itself and not attempting to open dialog. This has all been recorded, and this is EvergreenFir's second formally announced warning. Please do not harass me, thanks.Thisisashan (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not "report" me anywhere. And your edit here and here were after my final warning (and after Ian.thomson's discretionary sanction notifications). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, my posting an ANI notification is not "harassment" as you proclaim here. It's required that I notify you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been now given several chances to desist your harassment of me. You have continually committed to Libel, stalking, and contacting me against my expressed issues with said interaction. For the fifth time now, I ask that you please desist in interacting with me, it is in fact harassment. All this harassment because the facts I stated go against your bias. I'm new, but at least I understand NPOV, and the fact when someone asks you to stop approaching them, it is harassment to do so. Again, stop harassing me.Thisisashan (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You accuse me of libel. I insist you show me where. Accusations of a crime like that are unacceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So is lying, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thisisashan&diff=721164108&oldid=721156967 is clearly timestamped 2:36. Which is my last edit. Your time-stamp for your final warning? 2:48. So no, my edits were not after your final warning. This is a blatant lie, and written out, it is libel.
    FURTHERMORE according to WP:Legal threats, "[...]A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat.[...]".
    Lastly, claiming that I have made personal attacks, when i have not is libel. You seem to be on a roll regards to libel, keep it up.Thisisashan (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My warning - [144] - 02:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Your first post-warning comment - [145] - 02:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Your second post-warning comment - [146] - 02:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Try again? Also go read WP:NPA? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You specifically stated, "[...]were after my final warning[...]". Not your first warning, which is irrelevant due to it being the first warning I have ever received on wikipedia. Not your second warning, which again is irrelevant as it is not the warning in question. Your final warning. You are attempting to shift goalposts, as if your statement was about your original two warnings, which it never was. This is a fallacious move, and dishonest. Furthermore, just because the information provided is disputed, does not mean you are automatically correct. I have halted my actions until dispute resolution works out.
    Meanwhile you should try reading WP:NPA, as obviously, it is about attacks directed at someone personally. Thus the term, personal attacks. I have made no such attacks against anyone on the Antifeminism talk page, which is exactly why you cannot quote a personal attack from that excerpt.Thisisashan (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what part of "final warning" in [147] was unclear. Notifications of ANI postings are not warnings... they're notifications? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what part of 1:06 you have difficulty understanding that it came before your last warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifeminism&diff=721144323&oldid=721120167 My last edit, 1:06. We can all see the time, written out clearly. 1:06. Your buddy Acroterions warning? 01:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Your warning? 02:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC).
    Please desist with the attempted defamation, we all make mistakes, but it is clear that you are attempting to snuff out anyone that opposes your viewpoints in the anti-feminism Entry. You are using this as a means to claim ownership. And you are being dishonest to do so.Thisisashan (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Acroterion is my buddy? 先輩が大好き! Joking aside, NPA and all policies of wikipedia apply to all pages, including your talk page. Which is why the two diffs I linked above are ones you made after my final warning... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to politely disagree with this, I am here specifically to work on mens rights issues. Feminists rallying against an antifeminist for posting information in the antifeminist discussion page is anti-intellectual at best. What is being shown here is in fact WP:NOTHERE, but not by my accord. Silencing opposition is never a valid approach to academic works.Thisisashan (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A soapbox is a raised platform, for which I have made no attempts at. However, the attempts of feminists to silence an antifeminist who is discussing antifeminism, is exactly that. You are attempting to give feminists a soapbox to stand upon, from where they can denounce all non-feminists, even when talking about their own issues. You should remove your own soapbox before looking down at me and denouncing my attempts to have a polite discussion.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which was something I was unaware about. Is this what Wikipedia is all about? Bullying people who are unfamiliar with rules which attempt to stagnate harassment laws? All for what, to shut out the opinions of a professor who is attempting to have a polite discussions.Thisisashan (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny how that reply is also a legal threat: "rules which attempt to stagnate harassment laws". Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out policies which go against laws (unsuccessfully, private businesses cannot subvert laws, that takes a legal waiver), is not a threat of legal action. It is simply pointing out that a policy attempts to undermine the standard actions in the justice system.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You went onto a public website and acted outside of its policies. When those policies were explained for you, you screamed "harassment! libel!" and tried to play the victim card. Your "polite" discussion consisted of accusing the website of being run by a cabal bent on hiding some supposed truth that you failed to provide adequate sources for (something a professor should know how to do and would understand the importance of). You are not the victim of harassment here, you are just refusing to own up to your own mistakes. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my polite discussion consisted of several facts that feminists don't want to see on the antifeminist page, which are directly in line with antifeminist viewpoints. You are attempt to shift the scope of my polite discussion away from the discussion itself, and to this dispute. This dispute is not my contribution, my post on antifeminism was. The bullying here is obvious and blatant.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Donner60 keeps on removing source.

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


    Hi, Donner60 keeps on remove source in Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. Wikipedia policy requires citing of sources, especially when the fact is not known (because it was not shown on the TV programme). 108.162.157.141 (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Unverified Twitter accounts are not consider reliable sources. This really belongs over on AN3 given the number of times you reverted... And Donner60 was not notified of this ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @EvergreenFir:. That is the point of my reverts. Content change based on a twitter post, not what was apparently on the show or stated in a reliable, verifiable source about the show. If this had been brought to my talk page, I would have given a more explicit reply than the template delivered. In the alternative, I would have acknowledged a mistake if I had made one. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk:Timothy Leary

    I regret bringing this matter here, but it appears I have little alternative. The article Timothy Leary has been subjected to disruptive editing from editors using IP addresses for some time, leading to its being semi-protected on several occasions, most recently here, by Lectonar. The IP user who was disrupting the article now appears to be frustrated, and is disrupting the talk page instead, making a series of comments that have no relationship whatsoever to improving the article and appear to be aimed mainly at abusing me. This comment, for instance, is simply griping about Wikipedia in general. I let it stand, and warned the IP about using the talk page as a forum. The IP responded with this piece of personal abuse, which I removed as an egregious violation of WP:TALK, considering that it was 100% pure trolling and again had no relation at all to the article the talk page is actually about. The IP restored the abuse. I propose that the IP be given a lengthy block; and if truly necessary, that the talk page be protected from IP editing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to note in addition that the IP is very likely AcidRock67 editing while logged out. AcidRock67 modified a comment made by the IP here, which along with the similarity of general behavior strongly suggests it is the same person. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is pretty telling. Also, it's abuse of multiple accounts. Needs a block(s). Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FKC has turned both Timothy Leary and Aldous Huxley into WP:BATTLEGROUNDS over the question of whether these individuals where philosophers. In the last couple months, he's made more trips to drama boards than most of us make in a decade. Yes, AcidRock67 is a newbie, a fact FKC likes to take advantage of by edit-warring (e.g., just the latest, [149], [150]) with him until he makes a mistake that can be reported, by repeatedly requesting the articles be protected, locking AC67 out of the article, and by intransigently asserting arguments that amount to little more than personal opinion, e.g., his opinion that an individual can only be a philosopher by occupation if one is employed as a philosopher. (It seems to me it should enough to occupy your time as such.) Realistically, FKC is very difficult to get along with and his behavior, turning everything into a battle and then tattle-taling constantly at one drama board after another, is a huge part of the problem. FKC knows the rules and he's using them as a weapon to eliminate a new editor with an opposing view. What he should do is seek common ground, compromise or genuine consensus. Yes, AcidRock67 is making mistakes, lots of them. But he's a newbie and he's being provoked into making those mistakes. This is a case where it takes and has ALWAYS taken two for a fight. Personally, what I recommend is that FKC take a time out from both these articles for a few months and I bet every problem with AcidRock67 will simply end. Msnicki (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from completely uninvolved editor: That may be so, but it seems like a separate issue. If AcidRock67 is still socking/block-evading with IPs, after he was recently blocked for doing so and now knows better, then he should be very strictly sanctioned. Socking is a very serious violation and must be sanctioned. If there are unrelated IPs disrupting the talk page, those need to be somehow dealt with too. Anyone who really wants to edit Wikipedia can register an account if need be. In terms of FKC's disruptions, if they are really problematical perhaps a completely separate thread is in order, and perhaps an at-least temporary topic ban could be proposed. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Msnicki, I have not. In the case of Timothy Leary, an Rfc is still in process (so far as I know), and I have not made any edits related to the issue of Leary being a philosopher or not in quite a long time now. The issue at Aldous Huxley is not over whether Huxley was a philosopher but whether "philosopher" was his occupation, as I've patiently pointed out several times. It ought to be a simple distinction. None of this actually has anything to do with AcidRock67's apparent use of IP addresses to disrupt Talk:Timothy Leary and make insulting comments about me that have no relationship whatsoever to improving the article. It would be a good idea to not make excuses for disruptive users who do not care about Wikipedia's rules and have no intent of following them: and "FKC made me do it", is a pretty poor excuse for any form of bad behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Msnicki's complaints about me essentially boil down to "I don't like you." My response is that whether editors like each other or not is neither here nor there. Editors do not have to like each other per se; they do have to make an effort to follow the site's rules, however. Again, despite what Msnicki claimed, there is no edit warring over Leary being a philosopher or not going on at Timothy Leary; rather, there is an ongoing RfC. There is, again, a somewhat exasperated ongoing discussion at the Aldous Huxley talk page, rather than continued reverts at the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The account and the IP 2605:A000:1200:E013:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B have been blocked for two weeks. Please let me know if you should see a related-looking IP continuing the same disruption, because the range can be blocked if required. (Perhaps surprisingly, it's actually easier with IPv6.) Bishonen | talk 09:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • I don't see any evidence of socking or block evasin on AcidRock67/IP2605's part. AcidRock67 was blocked for 24h on May 15 but that block had expired at the time of this incident, so there was no block evasion. The person then returned to editing without logging in, but with no attempt at deception or using multiple accounts afaict. I haven't looked more deeply than that but if AcidRock67 is an actual newbie then we should remember WP:BITE. Wikipedia's customs are quite different from other places on the internet and we're supposed to allow some room for acclimation when someone arrives here. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • AcidRock67 might not have been guilty of block evasion, but if he is the same user as the IP, then he appears to be guilty of logging out so that he could make disruptive edits without having them linked to his account. The IP might not have claimed to be a different person, but it did not admit to being AcidRock67 either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dubious edits of Jürgen Klinsmann1990

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

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

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

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

    Possible AfC review scam?

    An editor has recently posted at the Teahouse to say that the subject of an article they have been drafting was contacted with an offer to approve the draft in exchange for money. Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Need assist for reviewing Draft:Karen Civil for full details. I just thought I'd flag this up, as I know there have been paid-editing scams like this in the past, but the AfC aspect is new to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    At AfC we intermittently hear about scams targeting editors whose drafts have been declined. They have been less frequent since June 2015, when we added to several places the notice, "Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page." There was another incident a few weeks ago, however. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cordless Larry. I suspect this is the latest strategy used by the Orangemoody clan who have previously operated through AfC, although in a slightly different way (for more details on their past modus operandi see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody). I also wonder how many more times this is occurring and never mentioned. Many editors never get as far as the AFC Help Desk where the instance noted by Worldbruce occurred. There is a special OTRS address for editors who have been approached with these "offers" to get help or report the offer: info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org. There are notices warning editors about the scam at the top Wikipedia:Articles for creation and the Articles for Creation Help Desk, but the warning needs to be more widely disseminated. I personally think it should also appear as a prominent edit notice whenever anyone creates a draft and on the first page of the Article wizard and at the top of Wikipedia:Your first article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both. I had read about that scam, including in the Guardian, but not in much detail so was unaware that there was an AfC connection. I have suggested that our Teahouse guest forward the e-mail to that address. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    People actually fall for this? HalfShadow 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If some people are already willing to pay for articles to be written, then that they'd pay for positive AfC review doesn't seem such a surprise to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

    A pic of himself, on his bike. Pedantic much? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NFCC#9 says that no non-free images may be used in the user talk namespace. This includes non-free images of the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the issue with the first one? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The first diff was to show he was warned. BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Templating a long-standing user as if he were a newbie is not the wisest approach. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots12:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG is unambiguously in the wrong and the image should be removed from his user talk page. BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And the OP is unambiguously in the wrong for violating Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. If you treat an established editor like a jerk, you can expect to be treated the same way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots12:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DTTR is an essay, not a policy with legal considerations. I'm not contesting that Stefan handles these matters in the most delicate way and I have criticised him for his methods in the past. But JzG is still wrong. BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You contradict yourself. You're talking here about "legal considerations", and below you're saying it's not about legalities. Also, the OP was screwing around with the subject's talk page, which is likewise not collegial behavior. Maybe the OP should be put on ice for a while to think about things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots12:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:USER#Non-free images: Non-free images found on [...] user talk pages) will be removed [...] without warning. Unfortunately, I seem to be more or less the only one fixing WP:NFCC#9 violations, and it would need more users in the area if we also want warnings to users. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is forcing you to do this work. If you don't like the work (which your attitude suggests), maybe you could switch your focus to something else that needs work. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This isn't Betacommand. The OP has had a registered account since 2006. --Jayron32 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't rule out it being a sleeper account. No way to test for it technically, so behavior is all we have to go on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots14:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no. You would more likely be a sleeper account for me. I could explain how patently ridiculous it is that one could think this was Betacommand based on the edit history (not taking into account the behavior, which has a similar intersection of abuse and image copyright compulsion). But no, there's simply no way. Betacommand, for all his foibles, never planned to be banned, and didn't create clean sleeper accounts he kept using continuously for six years in parallel to his main account on the off chance someone would eventually ban him. Just no. --Jayron32 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fine. Then what is it about that (voluntary) job that seems to bring out the worst in those doing that work? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots19:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's actually in the thing, wouldn't that be grounds for free use? Just out of curiosity. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, subjects of photographs almost never have any copyright or usage rights. (To do that they usually have to have some sort of contract with the photographer) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There was me looking for an excuse to bin the wedding photos! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Check your wedding photo contract. Wedding photos are one of the exceptions as they are generally work-for-hire. The current standard is for the photographer to retain copyright for a set period of time at which point it either reverts to the subject or they (subject) gain unlimited usage/repro rights. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    It's a picture of me, riding my bike, a bikethat people commented on on my talk page, with my son on the rear seat, taken by Peter Eland, then-editor of Velo Vision at a meet at Salt Aire, and supplied to me by Peter at my request. I put it on my talk page as part of the ephemeral discussion about the image. Frankly, I found Stefan's actions here to be little short of trolling. This is indeed a perfect example of the way Wikipedia policies can be actively hostile even to people who have been here a long time. And we keep changing the rules and demanding new shrubberies. File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg was released to me entirely properly, ten years later I am told I must now submit the email to OTRS, but I no longer have the email because I don't keep absolutely every email I ever received, so it's deleted. No wonder people leave. Commons is worse. Somebody tried to nuke commons:File:Gallery 15233 2536 180213.jpg because they didn't spot that my name (which I state openly) matches the name of the uploader on another site where I also shared it. Yes, I know the copyright rules are there for a reason, but FFS we really do go out of our way to make it as difficult as possible to keep anything uploaded, however unambiguous the permissions might be. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might mean Saltaire in West Yorkshire? My stomping ground as a teenager.DrChrissy (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you delete your evidence that you have permission, then your ability to use the image depends entirely on the copyright holder as courts tend to rule in favour of the copyright holder if the licensee can't prove that he has permission to use the image. In the case of File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg, also see c:COM:GOF - this was uploaded before 8 January 2006 according to the logs. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for proving my point. Excessively legalistic interpretation of the rules based on a hypothetical challenge that will not happen because the release was provided. Ditto with the bike: just because you don't know the identity of the rights owner doesn't mean that I don't, as the uploader. Excessively legalistic interpretation of rules that constantly ratchet towards an achievable asymptote comes across as arbitrary demands for shrubberies. And your response here indicates that either you don't care or (worse) it's deliberate. I am done with you. I never want to interact with you again, ever. That puts you on a list of about three people in my entire ten year history on Wikipedia. Think about that for a moment. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guy: Do you think Peter Eland would agree to freely license the picture? Since he took the photo, I am assuming he is the original copyright holder. If he agreed to do that, then it would not be subject to the NFCC. Otherwise, I do not see any way to write a valid non-free use rationale for the usage on your talk page which is something required by WP:NFCC#10c. As pointed out the file is currently being used in the Velo Vision article, and it does have a rationale for that particular usage. That stub, however, has been tagged with ref improve since 2009. If by chance it is someday deleted, the justification for the non-free usage of the file will be gone, which means it will probably be deleted per WP:F5. As a freely licensed file, on the other hand, it could stay on your user talk page for as long as you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Admins are expected to follow policy, in particular when the specific policy is mentioned in the edit summary, but I guess it could have been handled in a better way... --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Stefan2 in the real world, you pick your battles. Dealing with other editors in Wikipedia is the real world. Do you understand that doing stuff like this squanders your credibility in the community? Are you hearing what people are saying to you in this thread? Those are real questions... please do answer. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yes, Stefan you are technically correct.
    2. No, Stefan the way you went about dealing with this is not acceptable. A comment out, then a template to a 10 year veteran, then straight to AN/I is not the way to deal with things.
    3. Yes Stefan no non-free images should be used on talk pages.
    4. No Stefan, there is no conceivable real-world implication of this picture appearing there, so AN/I really isn't the place for this.
    5. Yes Stefan it would be nicer to see more people involved in dealing with fair-use on WP
    6. No Stefan, people are not going to be attracted to this thankless task when they see how bureaucratic other editors can be about these things.

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

    • Betacommand often acted like a jerk, but the thing about him that really used to annoy the people that he came into conflict with was that, 95% of the time, he was right and they were wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Kite, "right" according only to the most extreme interpretation of the non-free policy. It wastes a lot of time and he does seem to hound people. Whether it really is targeted hounding, or whether he's doing the same to lots of people, I can't tell, but it's depressing to have to spend time addressing positions that lack all common sense. SarahSV (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg, the error was that the uploader hadn't provided evidence that the copyright had expired in both the United States and a source country. Necessary (but not in themselves sufficient) conditions for this are that a) the photo has been published somewhere with consent from the photographer (as there is no situation under c:COM:HIRTLE where an unpublished German work from the 1940s can be in the public domain in the United States), and b) the photo hasn't bee published with consent from the photographer (as the photograph otherwise would hit the 70 years from publication rule in {{Anonymous-EU}} instead of the 70 years from creation rule, and the photo remained unknown to the public for several years). Since the uploader hadn't proven that a) and b) both were true, the file was nominated for deletion. But I'm not sure why you are bringing this up here. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The problem that a lot of editors forget is that NFC is as critical to maintain as BLP, in the eyes of the WMF; it, BLP, and copyvios are the only content policies that have WMF mandates. There are lots of grey areas of where NFC can be used, yes, but there are also a lot of bright lines that must be met as well, and we're supposed to deal with NFC that fall over those bright lines rigorously per the WMF. We need to be 100% sure on copyright ownership before declaring what might be a non-free image as uncopyrightable or PD, and so in a situation like the above, Stefan has every right to question the nature of the copyright chain of custody. They might be wrong, sure, and appear to have been wrong in this case, but as long as they drop the stick w.r.t. that set of images, that's how we should be treating such material. This is not how BetaCommand acted, so the implications that Stefan is BetaCommand are completely unfounded. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, these extremist positions about NFC are very damaging – to the policy and to the community. But I note that the extremism doesn't extend to preventing the objectification of women. You recently supported a featured-article candidate that contained a non-free image of a naked woman, one that I would say clearly violates the non-free content policy. But the Auschwitz Album must go, and an old image of a bike on a user page is an outrage. SarahSV (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Except as long as a credible enough reason is provided, non-free images can be used in articles. The Auschwitz album and the bike image are, as policy is written, not valid uses. The US is clear on how it applies copyright. I disagree with Stefan's *enforcement* of the policy in this (and I would have in the Auschwitz case too) but as per the written policy they are invalid. IAR can be waved for Auschwitz as the collection of photos clearly enhances the project and no one is *ever* going to raise a copyright claim on behalf of an unnamed SS concentration camp guard. Likewise JzG's close acquaintance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unambiguously clear from policy that files need a source. Special:PermanentLink/24983809 reveals that the copyright holder releases the file to the public domain, but it doesn't say who the copyright holder is, so there is no way to verify this claim. Such files need to be discovered as soon as possible: if you wait a few years, then the uploader may have left the project, and then it is no longer possible to ask the uploader for clarification. It's a bit unfortunate that it took ten and a half year to spot this, but luckily the uploader was still around, so he was able to clarify this. If the file had been around for another ten years without being fixed, then there's a risk that the file might never have been fixable, if the uploader no longer is around at that time. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, what? I never commented anything about the nature of the image (or the article itself) outside of whether the image met NFCC or not, so to claim that my view doesn't extend to "preventing the objectification of women" is a personnel attack and absolutely unwarranted. NFC is NFC, there are a number of bright lines that have to be met to use such images, and assuring that an image that might be non-free is not presented as free is very much one of those bright lines. Yes, ultimately it was shown that the Auschwitz images are claimed by other authorities to be in the PD, so that matter is settled, but at the time Stefan nominated them, there was a fair question as to their nature. What Stefan did is what anyone should be expected to do if they see a free image that might actually be non-free. (At commons, the only way is via deletion; here en.wiki, we now use FFD to review such images). --MASEM (t) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TIL nudity is sexist. TimothyJosephWood 15:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Masem & User:Slimvirgin, which article and image are you talking about? I normally do not follow discussions about featured articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5 though details on this are otherwise way off track for this matter. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • God damn it, this was not an ANI matter. If JzG was indeed intransigent on this cosmically minor matter, Stefan should have just taken it up quietly with some admin. What an incredible waste of time this has been -- time which could have been spent productively.
    Stefan's officious attitude is indeed offensive and a problem. In my one interaction with him I was driven almost mad by the templating, answers-which-didn't-answer-the-question, and refusal to engage what I was saying WP:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_4#File:WugTest_NowThereIsAnotherOne_FairUseOnly.jpg. Finally someone else came along and resolved the problem in an instant by pointing to the right policy, and answering the question asked. EEng 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:EEng, sorry if I didn't properly explain what the guidelines say at that time. When I get mad at something, I guess I sometimes escalate things a bit too much and don't think of what the best solution would be. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stefan demonstrating poor judgement in resolving issues and templating can be seen in these three posts to me. Each is about an orphaned non-free image. Each file names the academic journal to which it relates (as an image of the cover). Each had a proper non-free rationale. In each case, all that was needed was reversion of explained removal of the image, which should have been obvious. Instead of fixing the problem, Stefan simply dumps a template on my page for me to fix the problem. The value of an editor doing such work rather than a bot is that an editor has a brain and can exercise judgement. Sadly, whenever I see Stefan, I think of cases where information is clearly available but in the wrong form or simple problems which could have been quickly solved. Stefan, JzG is not following policy, but that doesn't put you in the right here. EdChem (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • A serious issue is attitude, which unfortunately is still something of fallout from BetaCommand from ~2009. There are presently over 0.5 million non-free images on en.wiki. There are about a dozen editors that actively maintain NFC, in light of the fact that after the falling out of the BetaCommand case, editors tend to give little fair treatment of those actually enforcing NFC. It's a vastly unappreciated job but one critical to the en.wiki and WMF mission, and the taint of the fallout of the BetaCommand situation has caused many editors to avoid admining that area to avoid getting being treated as if they were BetaCommand. As such, most of these admins in NFC do run their adminstration mechanically, using templates messages and the like, because that seems to be the only way to get through to most other users, while of course templating circularly leads to the resentment towards NFC and admins that handle that. While I do strongly agree that if all that is wrong with an image is a simple typo fix that is easily determined simply by looking at rationale that the admin should fix it instead of templating, many of the more common mistakes require understanding what the uploader or image user was thinking of when they added the non-free, and that's something that while an admin might guess at, it might be a wrong guess, and it is up to the uploader or reuser to make sure it is correct. (That is one thing that fell out from the Betacommand mess, that the onus on proper rationales, etc. is on the uploader, though admins should use common sense to fix the obvious typos).
      • We do need every editor on both sides, the NFC admin and those using NFC, to come back towards a more personable way to handle NFC, but with the understanding that it is a severely under-admined area that might have to resort to simple shortcuts (templates) to process the situation effectively. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:EdChem, if a file has been removed from an article, then it is typically a lot easier for the uploader to tell if it is correct that the article is unused or if it should be restored to the article. Also, the sooner the uploader becomes aware that a file incorrectly has been removed from an article, the faster the uploader can restore it to the article, so to reduce the time during which the image is missing from the article, the file should in my opinion be tagged as soon as possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hatting: Either inappropriate sockpuppetry or block evasion (don't know which, but doesn't matter). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • If JzG was in Stefan's shoes, he'd have banned the interloper "long-since", citing 3RR. "I'm just saying", that JzG knows who runs Wikipedia. *He* does, and if he wants to violate a rule, he *can*, he *does*, he doesn't care, and 40 people will line up and defend him, ignoring his hypocrisy and pathologizing the innocent fool (with due respect to Stefan) who had the unmitigated audacity to expect equal treatment. Ditto for when he bans someone-else, but in the other-direction. JzG is violating the 3RR, but 'he is who he is' and he gets to do what he wants. That's how Wikipedia operates and that's why Wikipedia is at-risk of delegitimatizing itself. Stefan had every right to complain, and handling with JzG with kid-gloves is not required. He doesn't own any himself, btw. Back on-point: If JzG knows the photo-owner, great, send him an email, get permission to release copyright, and no problem. There's no special "I know a guy" rule, as in "I know a guy, and he gave me X and he's probably give me copyright over X, since I'm part of X". You either have CR or you don't. That's JzG's logic, and he'd be here ranting if any other uses was behaving as he does. ChickenBoneInMyPonyTail (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I smell feet. Did someone take their socks off? TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, if you criticize JzG, it's like having the whole cast of the Walking Dead after you. And I have a survival instinct. ChickenBoneInMyPonyTail (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have updated the article Velo Vision by adding refs, and in doing so discovered that Peter Eland (who apparently took this picture, according to Guy) has retired from publishing the magazine and sold it to a former reader, Howard Yeomans. The fair use image data for the magazine cover being used in the article says that it is Intellectual property owned by Velo Vision Ltd. So isn't Yeomans now the owner of the intellectual property (the magazine cover) in question here?
      • Generally, yes, the sale of a property and all its old content transfer the copyright to the new buyer as well, but its possible there's different terms that allowed Eland to retain copyright, so there's no immediate way to tell without asking. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it not possible for this discussion to take place at the file's talk page (where efforts to resolve such matters are perhaps best placed)? The filing party acknowledges he didn't handle this very well, and if no actual sanction is going to result, must the discussion here be kept open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "acknowledging" you mean this dif please look at the three remarks made all at once there. I see "I'm sticking to my guns here" not a frank acknowledgement by Stefan of all the feedback they have been given here. I think this is pretty ripe for a boomerang by now, exactly because there is no sign they have heard what almost every commenter here has said. I was hoping to see them write something like "OK I get it. I withdraw this and will take the criticism I've gotten here on board." Stefan hearing what has been said here, is the one useful thing that could come out of what has otherwise been a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    More out of control legalism from Stefan2

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

    These:

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

    Comment Really, this amounts to WP:BULLYING by him. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you didn't see the comment further down, where copyright holder's information is in the metadata. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

    The way to stop the templating of the regulars is for regulars to stop doing stuff that one gets templated for; there's no particular reason the essay Don't template the regulars should be considered to have precedence over the essay template the regulars. Stefan2's major mistake here was picking the wrong forum, they would have been much better off filing at WP:CP. NE Ent 02:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there's a reason to value DTTR over TTR: DTTR is in Wikipedia space, while TTR is in one user's space. DTTR has been edited by 107 editors and has 92 watchers, while TTR has only 37 editors and 37 watchers. Clearly, DTTR is a more widely accepted essay that TTR is, and represents the views of a larger slice of the community. BMK (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What got Betacommand banished was his perpetual insistence on treating other editors like criminals. And the OP here is headed in the same direction. A compromise solution could be to change the text of the templates to read more like friendly cautions than like subpoenas. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots02:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @NE Ent: In the example I posted above, I was template because someone removed the image from the article to which it related, so Stefan templated me to warn of deletion of the now-orphaned image. Stefan's response was basically that it was easier for me to fix because sometimes the uploader is in the best position to decide - an argument with some validity. In my case, however, Stefan had three files all titled along the lines of "Cover of [JOURNAL NAME]" with a non-free use rationale describing use of a low-res file as the image of the cover of the journal for use on the [JOURNAL NAME] page. Was Stefan really not able to figure out the solution (re-add the image, removed with no good explanation? Of course not. However, templating me was easier for him than actually solving the issue. My issue is if an essentially mindless response is going to be taken, cut out the editor and just use a bot. I was templated in the past (repeatedly) by a bot because the standard format for information on a file page changed. I fixed it because, although the information was all there, a bot couldn't have sorted it out easily but a person could (recent posts to Giano are eerily similar, but coming from another editor). I object to being templated as a way of telling me that someone else has stuffed something up and the template-posting editor won't fix it even when the solution is obvious because templating me is easier for her or him than actually looking at what needs doing. EdChem (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • BethNaught mentioned the issue above: "It's about principles: we are a free encyclopaedia". In other words, this report is part of a political campaign to force freedom on all contributors. That's great in principle but the problem is that mindlessly acting as an enforcer of the rules requires certain, shall we say, qualities, and those characteristics often make a user unsuitable for the task. What if the benefits of forcing freedom are outweighed by the problems of driving off good contributors with do what I say and do it now posts on user talk pages? If no one is able to do the job with tact and thought, it might be better if Stefan2 were to find some other hobby. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The ANI in the title was closed less than three weeks ago, and User:SwisterTwister has continued the behavior that led to that ANI without any apparent change. To wit:

    • "Patrolled" ~500 pages in ~24 hours: [153], at times reviewing up to four pages per minute. It seems highly unlikely that this could be consistent with diligent reviewing.
    • Many patrols were unreviewed for apparent shoddiness during this period; the standard response by ST was removal of the notices without reply:
    • At least one deletion-tagging reverted for hastiness: [154] (probably others; I didn't do a thorough search for these)

    All the arguments for why this behavior must not continue were made in the previous ANI, so I'll keep it short: we can do without editors who have a mostly positive impact, but can't be bothered to heed the community. I propose User:SwisterTwister be banned from NPP, with appeal to be considered only if ST can convincingly show intent to radically change pattern. —swpbT 13:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @SwisterTwister: Your response? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (Pinging To editors Vanjagenije, Compassionate727 and Rebbing:)

    • Comment: Perhaps I'm misreading this, but care to explain the selective pinging here? There were quite a number of people involved in the previous discussion, including myself. I'm deeply concerned by this and feel that it is highly inappropriate. Will comment later on the other parts of this discussion. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chrisw80: I think it's to do with this recent NPP thread about pages being reviewed quickly and ANI being mentioned -- samtar talk or stalk 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samtar:, hi there! Thanks for pointing that out. I see why swpb might have chosen those particular users, but I'm still not thrilled about it. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is where those users came from. It wasn't a malicious choice; hopefully you AGF on that. You can certainly ping any voices you think are missing. —swpbT 19:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to ban SwisterTwister from New Pages Patrol

    side note; just formatting with this sub-heading 1 Etimena 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support - I don't normally get involved with AN/I issues, but (and certainly from the amount of time it took for my newly-created page to be marked as 'reviewed' whilst there were still obvious issues outstanding I was in the process of sorting) I think there's a real issue here - as per the previous discussion, speed is almost certainly not everything when involved with NPP. Mike1901 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support SwisterTwister reviews and tags hundreds of articles, but never replies to questions on his talk page in a timely fashion.JerryRussell (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. SwisterTwister's reviewing has barely gotten any better. He continues to receive a massive stream of "I have unreviewed a page you curated" messages. I've only received two of those in my entire life. Looking at his reviews, most of his articles are inadequately tagged: Adam Hassan Sakak, Living by Numbers (song), Digital Stimulation, Contribution (album), I'd Wait a Million Years, We Happy Few (Supernatural), Aureolaria patula, Buerhatong River, Beverley railway station, Western Australia, Zhang Kechun, Tarlac City local elections, 2016. Compare this with four articles I checked that were okay, two of them because there weren't any problems and one because he PRODed it. He isn't checking the articles very well. In my experience, doing only four a minute is plenty of time to adequately tag articles; he's clearly just not looking. And frankly, his refusal to communicate on his talk page is very obstructive. He was warned to fix his issues in the last ANI, and since he hasn't, I support a total ban from NPP. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ST by and large kills it at NPP. Maybe he should be more open to talking about stuff, maybe he could be asked to refrain from hitting "reviewed", but no way in hell should ST be kicked off NPP. The flood of crap that will ensue would be unacceptable. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting we need one editor, and should therefore let them get away with clear violations? That's a horrifying precedent; luckily it's not one this community will ever take seriously. Since you are apparently unaware, ST has been "asked to refrain from hitting reviewed", many times; that request has gone totally unheeded. —swpbT 14:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm suggesting nothing of the sort, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't put words in your mouth (learn the syntactic difference between "are you" and "you are"), I asked you to clarify yourself, which you haven't done. So then you reject the idea that productivity should stand in the way of a behavior-based ban? It's a yes or a no. If no, then I stand by my question. If yes, then it's good to know you're abandoning your initial premise, because it was a pretty weak one. 14:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Off-topic
    • Support Since no change since the previous discussion. Mendaliv - of course the backlog at NPP will be low when someone has opened the floodgates and doesnt watch what flows through. If ST's removal causes the backlog to grow to unmanagable proportions, well thats when the process will need to be looked at. But saying 'They do good work!' and using the evidence of the numbers they clear - when people are specifically complaining they are doing too many and not paying enough attention - is not a great rebuttal. I have just take a spot-check of some and they appear to be about 50-50 good/bad. Which is a terrible terrible ratio. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. WP:NPPCHK is a must, and this editor obviously does not perform it. Even more, he refuses to do it after being told so many times. That kind of behavior has to stop now. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have encountered SwisterTwister many times, and his judgement is terrible. Also, his extreme-deletionst standpoint at AfD should be reviewed as well. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Opened and speedily closed below; thus a distraction from this discussion
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      • Speaking without knowledge of or position on the AfD issue, I would suggest that should be a separate AN/I, just to keep things clean. —swpbT 15:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, making different AN/I for AfD. Is there any way to track the total number of AFD votes? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThePlatypusofDoom: Special:Contributions/SwisterTwister. Just look for the ones made to AfD. Which I'm sure you already knew, and I'm pretty sure there's not a better way.–Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See the AfD stats tool, if it's working. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, there is also the AFD Tools link here: [155] that can be used for any editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I said in the last ANI discussion and I quote "I'm sure he'll walk away from this and hopefully would rethink and change some of his actions" ..... 2/3 weeks later he's apparently changed nothing and has just carried on regardless, As noted above he seems to blindly review everything without actually looking and the amount of unreview tags he's getting is rather surprising, He was given the chance to change and has apparently not bothered so we either block them for disruptive editing or we ban them from patrolling NPP ..... (Latter is the best choice IMHO). –Davey2010Talk 15:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Although I wish this was now a thing of the past. SwisterTwister pledged I am willing to change my pace and better examine these articles, but his haste at NPP continues, and when asked about it his standpoint is that I'm not interested with any [...] criticism. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: We would be far better served by a backlog at NPP that's processed correctly than the reverse situation. This has been going on far too long and SwisterTwister has demonstrated an inability to learn from feedback or to follow reasonable directions.  Rebbing  16:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is concerning, but I would like the defendant to have an opportunity to be heard before we hang him.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't have a comment on this reviewer's New Page Patrol, which is the subject here, but I am satisfied with this reviewer's work at Articles for Creation (AFC), which may be a more intensive process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, their AfC is quite good, and I'd be quite happy if they would stick with that. Frankly, I've sometimes wondered if they're going about NPP with an AfC mindset. Like, only tagging issues that might cause problems with AfC. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Sorry SwisterTwister, you do a lot of good work, but I ran out of good faith as of this. Taken in consideration with the other examples, I'm led me to conclude that little has changed, and allowing this to continue may harm the encyclopedia. No objection to ST requesting a lifting of the ban after six months, provided that everything else if good.- MrX 17:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: and now he's supposedly retired. I think he's really just trying to be manipulative with that. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - First of all, thank you to Mojo Hand. Second, if at all I was going fast, it was honestly because, one, any large amounts are sometimes articles started by the same user, for example, Alexander Iskandar (who started several government articles) and also a few other users starting Olympic articles. Third, there had been a sock infestation at NPP recently and no one seemed to accurately be fixing it. See User:Ziyankhan1 and User:Sunekit, thus I went out of my comfort zone to ensure actual people were at NPP. Again, I have slowed down and people also have to consider the amount of what these articles are again, a user will start about 25 to 30 articles within hours, all about government, football, etc and they're easy and simple reviews. I would like for someone to have talked to me about this at my talk page or another path instead. As I've said before, if I don't respond at talk, it's either because I'm busy taking care of areas no one else visits, or I'm not always interested, either if it's negative and such. I have to also say, I'm rather concerned this is adjacent to an ANI about my AfD work....... SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SwisterTwister: But what about the examples provided above in the discussion? Also, your history at AfD concerns me, because you vote delete 85% of the time, often with bad rationales. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) @ThePlatypusofDoom: We've just covered this below - although ST primarily !votes delete they are nearly 100% accurate. I make no comment on their rationale, but I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here -- samtar talk or stalk 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samtar: I know, I was explaining why I put it up there to SwisterTwister. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies - I have also moved your comment to help readability -- samtar talk or stalk 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ST's AfD stas are totally irrelevant to this discussion as Platypus well knows. A more heavy-handed attempt at piling on with extraneity I haven't seen. For a while anyway. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, I had been concerned with SwisterTwister's AfD votes for a long time, this seemed like a good time to bring it up, as he was already under discussion. I'm sorry if you feel like I was trying to harm SwisterTwister. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Moved back into conversation flow -- samtar talk or stalk 18:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
    No problem, and no disrespect- but as your account is only six weeks old, I was curious as to the breadth of your experience at NPP etc. Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A sock infestation? If it they were spamming junk, it was going to be caught. You didn't have to neglect 1,000+ (and at the rate you are going, with 500 a day, 1,000 is not an exaggeration) articles and clean it all up yourself. You also could've just found the sock(s) and gone through their contributions. Certainly would've been a lot less damaging. And just because their small doesn't mean they don't have problems. They need to at least be tagged with a stub tag, and usually they'll have insufficient references. That also needs to be tagged. Linkrot should be tagged (especially since that's the one category which has a user who actively cleans that up), and so should not having categories (which is a very easy check I see you haven't been doing). Frankly, I'm just not convinced. And like MrX mentioned above, seriously? Your tag didn't save and you didn't notice? –Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SwisterTwister: That's your best reason? It's not like you are the only editor at NPP. People will catch the socks, this doesn't give you an excuse to speed through NPP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support because of the apparent lack of improvement, demonstrated by the significant number of unreviews, since last time, when I indeed proposed a ban on marking pages as reviewed. BethNaught (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've seen good work from SwisterTwister at AFC and CSD. The speed of NPP is concerning, so I would encourage him to take a break of six months from NPP.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you kidding me? I don't know if there is a case to be made for a topic ban here, but if there is then @Swpb: has done a very poor job of making it. In his proposal he states that ST has reviewed up to 500 pages in a 24 hour period and has had some unreviewed pages. That's to be expected; no one is perfect. For patrol activities I generally find coaching/feedback is warranted if the reviewer is performing at below a 95% accuracy rate - that would be about 25 failures per 500 patrols. Is ST performing below that level? I have no idea, because the OP hasn't made any effort to provide that information. Swbp has given about a dozen examples, spread over the last three weeks of pages that were unreviewed. So what? Out of thousands of patrols, that is perfectly reasonable - all editors are human, after all. The four per minute review tempo also isn't automatically concerning; no link was given to the reviews to see if more time was warranted: for example, it can only take seconds to identify an attack page - tag the article for speedy and you have 100% completed WP:NPPCHK. Swbp also makes a claim of "reverted deletion tagging for hastiness", but that claim isn't supported by the link provided (which traces back to a declined AfD submission). I find the number of editors jumping on this bandwagon without justification (or indeed, expression of any individual thought) deeply concerning. A ban should be a last resort, people. The lack of justification combined with the onerous selective pinging really strikes me as more reminiscent of bullying than anything else. VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone knows what ST's accuracy rate is, but given his rate and his policy of marking pages "patrolled" when he hasn't really looked at them but merely intends to later, there's no way his false-negatives are limited to the undone reviews that made it to his talk page. But more importantly, he has directly defied the will of the community, and lied about an intent to change his practices at this very forum less than three weeks ago. We cannot put up with that. —swpbT 22:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Bull. If you want someone banned, you make a case for it. Present evidence of poor NPP performance, and I will review your claim and respond with my informed support or opposition. Please link proof that ST consistently "hasn't really looked at them but merely intends to later". To what "will of the community" are you referring? Fair warning: if you link to a discussion that was closed as "no consensus" you earn a trout. VQuakr (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SwisterTwister said that his NPP reviewing would improve, but he still is doing an abysmal job. He is hurting the encyclopedia because of this. Also, consensus seems to be overwhelmingly for the NPP ban. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know counting votes isn't the way to decide consensus, but so far there has been twelve "supports", and the only "Oppose" vote is behind a weak argument. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThePlatypusofDoom: he still is doing an abysmal job. Based on what information have you reached this conclusion? I know counting votes isn't the way to decide consensus... Great; don't. VQuakr (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: Look at any of the examples provided above. Also, he is getting a constant stream of "I have unreviewed an article that you reviewed" messages, look at his talk page! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I already addressed that in my post here. If, as you imply, your assessment is based on the ~0.3% of ST's May reviews that have been linked in this discussion, I can safely ignore your opinion as too uninformed to have value. VQuakr (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak argument my eye. Someone mischaracterized my argument, more like. ST hasn't straightened up sufficiently to meet some arbitrary standard, and as VQuakr rightly points out, the case hasn't been made that ST's miss rate at NPP is unacceptably high. Let's see some proof. Not cherry-picked examples, but evidence that there's a systematic failure that is not only significant, but is disproportionately worse than other NPPers. That's the case you need to make to justify a ban from hitting the reviewed button. Banning from NPP entirely is a completely separate matter from what any of the above evidence shows. Is there evidence of significant misuse of CSD for instance? If not, it's inappropriate to fully ban him from NPP since he'd be unable to tag new pages for CSD. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would need to make a tool that tracks his RPP NPP stats. Is anyone a decent enough coder to do that? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThePlatypusofDoom: I think you mean NPP Omni Flames let's talk about it 23:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omni Flames: yeah, I messed up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omni Flames: I don't think anyone in this case wants to see SwisterTwister's Requests for Page Protection. Whoops. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I expect anyone clearing new articles at a rate measured in pages/minute should be correctly reviewing/tagging/fixing 99% of the pages they mark reviewed - if less than 99% better to be slower than less accurate. NPP is not about how many articles you review but how well you review them. That said no one has shown ST is making 1% errors over time. Demonstrate 1% 5% bad rewiews and I will support the ban. (I say 1% in this case when 5% is the typical rate for problematic reviewing because ST's high absolute number of reviews means more bad articles get through and it is obvious there is room to slow down and still get a lot done when one is reviewing 500 articles/day.) JbhTalk 01:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Changed to 5% because it is better that a 95% good review be done by ST than a crap review by some editor who thinks NPP is just an easy version of vandal fighting or is simply inexperienced and clueless. JbhTalk 01:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
    • Comment It seems to me SwisterTwister was right in these 2 cases, although the others were definitely an error of judgement.
    • Oppose a blanket ban from NPP (but support an alternate solution) I have seen SwisterTwister's work directly at AfD and indirectly at AfC. In both of these, I would say they have done a reasonably good job overall. (including AfDing Wikipedia's longest running hoax). For the errors in judgement at NPP, I am hesitant to support a blanket ban at this time. Firstly, because I haven't seen the statistics (per Jbhunley and VQuakr). Secondly, considering that ST is one of the few to volunteer at NPP, I would rather concentrate on finding a solution to improve ST's accuracy. Implementing a 6 month blanket ban wouldn't help it. I tried doing NPP about 2 months ago and found that I got quickly tired. After reviewing about 20 pages, a temporary fatigue set in and my internal standards for an article started decreasing. I have stopped doing it since. My suggestion here would be to limit the number of articles that can be reviewed per day for ST and then monitor the accuracy. What should be the limit can be discussed. But I don't think a blanket ban will be productive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose a topic ban. Are you serious? ST is easily our most dedicated and active reviewer at NPP. As someone who patrols new pages themselves, I know that we badly need more patrollers. I've also come across ST a large number of times and I must say that I've generally been thoroughly impressed by his work. Have you even considered what will happen if we ban him? Patrolling is one of the most difficult and tiring tasks that needs to be done here. It's also one of the most important, because the longer an attack page or advert stays as an article, the worse. We should be spending time gathering new reviews, not banning them!
    I'd also like to point out that the OP really did make some very poor arguments when opening this topic. They gave a total of ten examples of incorrect new page patrolling over a 16 day period. The OP also said that he's patrolling around 500 pages every day. Let's do some maths here, that means that ST patrolled approximately 16*500=8000 pages in that 16 day span. Of course, there are probably more examples of that, but the OP failed to give them. 10 wrongly patrolled pages out of 8000 is an amazing success rate. We shouldn't be basing a topic ban on the number of inappropriate patrols, but rather a ratio of inappropriate patrols to total patrols. A TBan for ST would be like banning someone for being too active. That's ridiculous. So, I'm strongly against this proposal, or at least until someone gives me some half-decent evidence that SwisterTwister patrolling new pages is harmful to the encyclopedia. Omni Flames let's talk about it 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose NPP ban for ST. ST NPPed 500 articles in 24 hours? Why were there 500 articles to be reviewed? I doubt that ST was out-clicking the other NPPs. If and when other NPPs start complaining that ST is taking work away from them and ST is still doing a poor job, then let's discuss it. Couldn't we solve the problem by doing more NPP ourselves? Jim1138 (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- those asking for a ban have not really made that strong a case that SwisterTwister's mistake rate is that terrible relative to the amount of work they do. Reyk YO! 08:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • What "mistake rate"? You have to be doing something in order to be able to make mistakes. If he was reviewing articles, we would be able to comment on his mistakes, but he is not reviewing them at all, he just clicks "reviewed" button. There are no mistakes because he is not doing any job. He just marks articles as reviewed without actually reviewing them, and so prevents other editors from reviewing those articles. I believe it is better to have 10,000 unreviewed articles waiting for review than to have 10,000 articles marked as "reviewed" that are actually not reviewed. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not what appears to be the OP argument: it's that ST's review quality is too low. We're asking for proof of that. A conclusory statement that he's just clicking review without checking is not a valid proof. Provide proof of your claim please. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the same minute, this editor marked this, this, this, this and this as reviewed. It is not possible even to read those five article in less than a minute, let alone to check WP:NPPCHK. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • It took me less than a minute to see that three of those are songs/albums which charted so pass the music SNG. The bio is sourced, not an attack piece and has a decent chance of passing GNG. The only one I am unsure about is Digital Stimulation, it seems to not have charted but I see enough press on it that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would have either passed on it or PRODed it but popular music is not my thing. JbhTalk 17:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Some articles can be reviewed very quickly, but others take time and effort. For example, if one encounters a really well-written academic level article or something that sounds like marketing copy, the first thing they should do is search for potential WP:COPYVIOs. These are much more common than one would imagine. If a patroller encounters a new article with inexplicable disambiguation, for example Climate change consequences, they should check Wikipedia for duplicate articles (Effects of global warming). Likewise, if encountering Rippy McFlyRapper (musician) a search might reveal a previous AfD for Rippy McFlyRapper. An stub article about a village in Pakistan, may only include the name of the village and the nearest road. In my opinion, at least a category, or the name of the country, should be added to the stub before reviewing it. - MrX 18:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, however what has not been demonstrated is that ST is giving short shrift to such things. I would be much more inclined to support sanctions if it was shown that he was letting through non-notable subjects, copyvio, blp violations etc but that has not been demonstrated. Personally I think cats, refs, links etc should be cleaned up too, or at least a reasonable try with the automated tools be made, but the big things are blp, notability, copyvio and promo ie keeping the articles that should not be here out before they get lost in the millions of other articles.

                  There are of lots of NPP editors who do not manage even that. They just review many fewer aarticles. I fear the backlog created by banning ST would be cleared by those far substandard reviewers rather than the slack being picked up by experienced reviewers, most of whom have said they max out at 20-30 reviews in a day without burning out or making errors. JbhTalk 18:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose I agree with what other editors who are opposing are saying above. There is no evidence that SwisterTwister's ratio of incorrect to correct reviews is anything to be concerned about. I have looked through a sample of their last 30 or so patrolled pages and I'm not seeing any problems. Pages that should have been tagged were, ones that should have been speedyed or prodded were, and correctly. I also looked at the last 7 pages that were unreviewed. There was one on 12th, two on 13th, two on 16th, one on 18th and one on 19th. None of these were unreviewed because of a legitimate problem with SwisterTwister original review. I will list my assessment of each unreview below.
    • 12th May - Connor Flegal - This was weirdness in the patrol log probably caused by an edit conflict. The patol log says MrX unreviewed and tagged as speedy deletion. SwisterTwister said in response on his talk page that he though he had tagged for speedy deletion. Both probably tagged at the same time, MrX's tagging went though and the patrol log got messed up. I've seen something like this happen before.
      • That's incorrect. He marked it as reviewed well before I nominated it for speedy deletion. The article was clearly vandalism.- MrX 11:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The page log [161] shows three entries
          • 02:31, 12 May 2016 MrX (talk | contribs | block) marked Connor Flegal as unreviewed (I'm not sure why this was marked as reviewed. It's utter nonsense.)
          • 02:44, 12 May 2016 SwisterTwister (talk | contribs | block) marked Connor Flegal as reviewed
          • 03:40, 12 May 2016 Explicit (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Connor Flegal (G3: Vandalism)
        • Your entry of unreviewed is the first one. The only way that can happen is if you both tagged the page at the same time and the conflict caused the log to think that SwisterTwister reviewed it and then you unreviewed but only your edit went through so only your entry showed up in the log. 13 minutes later SwisterTwister then marked it as reviewed because it was still showing as unreviewed even though you had tagged it.Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You missed this one from 3 hours and 28 minutes before I unreviewed the page. The chronology: ST reviewed the page; I unreviewed and CSDed the page; ST reviewed the page again.- MrX 17:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 13th May - Caspar Lee by Sally - Loriendrew and SwisterTwister both tagged at same time creating edit conflict which autoreviewed/unreviewed.
    • 13th May - Tejasvi - SwisterTwsiter and Swbp tagged at the same time; another edit conflict.
    • 16th May - Team 1325 Inverse Paradox -SwisterTwister prodded, Randykitty deprodded and tagged which is perfectly acceptable and the way Proding is supposed to work. SwisterTwister responded the the message on his talk page and the took it to AfD where the page is most likely going to be deleted.
    • 16th May - Nam phrik ong - SwisterTwister added a refimprove tag about the same time another editor added a rough translation tag. This was probably another edit conflict.
    • 18th May - Pakokku University - Page was auto-unreviewed by new user when they incorrectly added CSD tag. SwisterTwister's original review of the page was fine; he had added unreferenced and stub tags.
    • 19th May - Srikanth Gowda - Page was unreviewed by a now blocked sock. SwisterTwister had added correctly added a BLP sources tag.
    I have not seen anything to give me any concern about their ability to review pages. There is certainly not enough evidence to justify a topic ban. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. No evidence has been presented of a problematic error rate, and Sarahj2107's analysis convinces me that a few pages being unreviewed is not much of a problem. Overall, SwisterTwister's success rate at this thankless task looks pretty good to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Sarahj2107's information --Cameron11598 (Talk) 09:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Omniflames and Sarahj2017. I am not convinced that ST's error rate is unacceptable, and I do not want to lose the NPP services of someone who works so hard at what, as Boing says, is a fairly thankless task. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanction. Plenty of circumstantial, suggestive evidence has been offered against ST; but we cannot afford anything but the hardest facts and proof of malfeasance. This would be in the form of (high) numbers, copious diffs, and qualitative damage to WP. None of which has been presented. We have to have to hold the evidence to such a high standard in order to prevent our own actions creating a net loss for the project. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: absolute ban from NPP. For same existing reasons as in first community discussion. In addition, the lack of improvement and the apparent lack of cooperation on SwisterTwister's part to improve or even seeming to care. I feel the need to fret when I encounter an abyssmal article (as yesterday - the last I uncurated a page and the notice landed on his page.) Why should I have to undertake the research to prove that the article is not worthy after having been patrolled? Said article Aima Baig is now up for PROD, nominated by another editor entirely: so three other editors have now taken efforts on an article that should not have been patrolled as approved in the first place. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 12:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You shouldn't have to reverse a curate, but you should demonstrate that ST's miss rate at curation is disproportionately bad. It's just as easy to argue here that ST has many misses because he curates a lot of pages. High producers will always produce a larger number of mistakes than low producers when their mistake rate is the same. That there's a significantly different mistake rate has never been demonstrated. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - It is all about the error rate, not whether more than zero errors were made. Not enough evidence to merit a ban. Carrite (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Some articles can be reviewed fast, with knowledge of the relevant policies. On the whole, ST seems to do a good job of reviewing. Reviewing quickly isn't an argument, unless you can provide evidence that they are doing a bad job. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support two-week ban from NPP: I think this is not ST's biggest problem area, but I do think he needs a short, sharp slap to slow down a bit, as clearly, asking nice with a carrot isn't changing his mind. Then a chance to see if he gets it. I've been troubled by his tendency to conflate quality with notability. To do NPP properly, one has to differentiate between the two. I've also been troubled his insistence on deletion when merging or userfying would work better. He's working too fast and with inadequate analysis at times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talkcontribs)
    • Oppose - While not quite as poorly thought out as the proposed AFD ban, (truly terribly done) I still don't think it's enough to warrant a ban. I wish ST would slow down though, if for no other reason than to appease the proposers, so they'll cut it out with these lengthy discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Length of ban—6 months?

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


    At this rate, the ban is almost happening. This brings to the question. Will the ban be 6 months? Etimena 02:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe an indefinite ban is what's under discussion, and I think an indefinite ban is appropriate. The proposed ban is not for disruptive behavior but persistent incompetence and an unwillingness to heed appropriate criticism. I can see no reason why that would resolve itself with a mandatory break. Rebbing 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rebbing:, @Mendaliv: given that the proposal will succeed, I have created 2 time proposals for the community to decide below. Etimena 04:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 6 months or shorter if a ban is enacted. I generally oppose indefinite length sanctions because of the incapability of most editors to actually obtain relief from sanctions. I furthermore object to the presumption that the sanction under discussion is for an indefinite length. No statement of length was ever made, and it is mistaken, albeit common, to presume that there is consensus for indefinite length. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


    SwisterTwister's track record on AfD is terrible. As shown by the counter (here), over 95% of his votes are delete. Therefore, I propose a ban from AfD for SwisterTwister. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC) (external link formatted)[reply]

    @ThePlatypusofDoom: however their accuracy (green) is 100% 94% - admittedly the majority of voted AfDs are yet to be closed -- samtar talk or stalk 15:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Above percentage edited from 100% edited per RickinBaltimore's comment -- samtar talk or stalk 15:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

    see https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/ ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, while they have had a large percentage of delete votes, the more important thing to look at is how many of their votes were against consensus. Of their recent 500 AfD votes ([163]), it looks like they match consensus 94% of the time, which honestly is pretty good. That's not even close to being disruptive. Just voting delete isn't a bad thing, if that's the case I should be banned from AFD too. ([164]) RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Samtar and RickinBaltimore: percentage of votes to delete is not a good measure of quality. ST's AfD behavior may be problematic, but sufficient evidence of that has not been presented here. —swpbT 15:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose close this as irrelevant. An editor having a certain view as to whether to generally keep / delete articles does not, thanks to the requirement for consensus, do any major damage to WP (unlike the issues above, which undoubtedly could). Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Expanding to 500 !votes [165] shows an accuracy still approaching 100%, with one Keep !vote on an article that was deleted and only a handful of Deletes on articles that were Keep. SwisterTwister is a deletionist, but that is a very very long way from having a "terrible" track record - most of these articles were Deletes by consensus, and !voting with the consensus can hardly be represented as a problem whether you like the consensus or not. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Can I be absolutely honest - I've noticed more than once ST !vote delete in something where for instance the discussion's going towards redirect .... I've had the impression he doesn't review the article nor the AFD !votes ..... He just blindly !votes whatever...., However if somehow he does have a good record then I guess it's not much of an issue... –Davey2010Talk 15:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close speedily The issue at AfD is not the stats but the quality of the !votes. However, this is not a major problem because the closing admin will weigh them appropriately. I would suggest closing this speedily as it's a distraction from the report above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious Oppose. The count of 95% of !votes cast as delete is utterly irrelevant if a) the editor tends to !vote on AFDs they think should result in delete and doesn't !vote much on AFDs they think should result in keep, and b) their record in agreeing with the eventual outcome is strong, which it is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a question of nomenclatura, but when editors are !voting oppose are they also !voting to speedy-close this thread? Or not? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and close: SwisterTwister's AfD contributions are notoriously lackluster, and I assume any closer worth her salt disregards them completely. He has a high accuracy rate because he typically waits to vote until there's an obvious consensus and then repeats it in boilerplate language. (He explained in the previous ANI discussion that he "[has] to vote at all AfDs to simply get a clear consensus.") That said, I don't believe poorly-researched yet voting made in good faith is sanctionable, and, even if it were, a topic ban would be far too soon.

      I support speedy close of this section.  Rebbing  15:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruptive editing by user Pprcgi

    User Pprcgi (talk · contribs) ( who may also be 39.32.222.179), has engaged in disruptive editing of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor over the past few days by making repeated and massive reverts. He/She has been requested to be more careful about reverting edits because his/her reversions result in large amounts of sourced and researched being deleted, as well as hyperlinks to newly created wikipedia pages linked from the China Pakistan Economic Corridor site.

    Further, he/she repeatedly inserts a POV section entitled "Indian sponsored terrorism to sabotage CPEC" in which the user has copied and pasted a sentence from the section "Indian objections to CPEC," followed by an unsourced and unverified POV claim that India is dedicating $300 million to sabotage CPEC. Again, no source was provided, and I have twice made clear on the talk page for the site that this is a major problem for being both POV and unsourced. The user instead continuously re-inserts the unsourced and POV claim, and has strangely pointed to an articled entitled "Pakistan's relations with militants" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict#Pakistan.27s_relation_with_militants) to somehow justify the insertion of his/her unsourced claims and the use of the POV terminology "Indian sponsored terrorism."

    The Section he/she keeps reverting the page for states:


    Indian sponsored terrorism to sabotage the project
    In March 2016, Pakistan announced that it had arrested a suspected spy from India's Research and Analysis Wing, Kulbhushan Yadav, who Pakistan accused of entering Pakistan from Iran specifically to destabilise regions in Pakistan's Baluchistan province to hinder implementation of CPEC projects.[275] Later on Kulbhushan Yadav confessed all allegations on media.

    India has raised objections to the project and has set aside US$300 million to cause disruptive activities both physical and political. India has lodged permanent representatives of most of self-exiled separatist Baloch leaders and provides them forum for venting anti-Pakistan sentiment within India and other countries. Gravity of the matter can be gauged from the fact that during the construction of M-8, there were 207 attacks on the FWO workers by miscreants that caused 26 deaths of its staff, while 18 from the helping staff also lost their lives.[276]"''


    It's also poorly written, but thats beside the point. I tried to compromise by writing a section entitled "Allegations of Indian activity against CPEC" in order to address his/her concern in a less biased fashion, and only wrote factual material backed by sources. He/she completely deleted this to re-insert his/her POV instead.

    User Diannaa (talk · contribs) has rightfully pointed out that the last sentence uses a quote from a copyrighted source (see [276]), and so removed the quote. 39.32.222.179 (talk · contribs) quickly made yet another massive revert, and thus re-inserted the copyrighted source. I suspect that 39.32.222.179 is indeed Pprcgi as the sort of edit made is suspiciously similar to the sorts of reversions made by pprcgi, but of course, I cannot prove this.

    We are also having a debate about his/her insertion of an article entitled "central alignment" too, but I'm trying to negotiate with him/her to expand the section before creating an entirely new section for his one sentence. Negotiations in that regard are ongoing as I've urged him/her to offer more in depth information in line with sections dedicated to "western alignment' and "eastern alignment" etc.


    Here are the diffs of disruptive edits: [166] [167] [168] Willard84

    1. Sign your posts. 2. Notify the person involved... --Tarage (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    1. My mistake. 2. User notified [169]Willard84 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 48 hours, with a reminder that recidivism will produce longer blocks. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerning behaviour and username Cartoon Network (CN) Master

    Cartoon Network (CN) Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apart from having a username that could suggest a COI or corporate account, has a suspicious pattern of edits - numerous edits adding or removing unnecessary spaces or blank lines - perhaps gaming to get autoconfirmed? Has created a couple of articles. I will inform them of this discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Smells of fresh, out of the package socks to me... but I don't have enough diffs to pinpoint who. The name is similar to a known sockpuppeter's naming pattern, but they've been inactive for about a year. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They randomly put an indef banned template on User:Surappagari. --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps they are related accounts? (Belonging to the same person?) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The "removing unnecessary spaces or blank lines" reminds me of this. Omni Flames let's talk about it 06:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: @Cartoon Network (CN) Master: has been blocked indefinitely by @Orangemike: for "Promotional username, soft block" --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Return of Bigshowandkane64

    Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again, this time as MarioandLuigibrothers6412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 72.64.5.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the Simple English Wikipedia and as 168.244.11.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the English Wikipedia. He left a personal attack on my talk page over on the Simple English Wikipedia as well as continuing his brand of disruptive edits on Quinton Flynn ([170]) and on Spencer Fox ([171]). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the cross-wiki nature of the abuse, I've globally blocked the 72- IP and locked the account and a couple of sleepers. It's worth noting that not all of the edits are vandalism, so reverting on a case-by-case basis might be best unless they're banned. You could also start an SPI for them here and on simplewiki. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Bigshowandkane64 is banned from the English Wikipedia, actually. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure. I've struck that part of my comment. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Return of Indian cinema sock (and now personal attacks)

    The page India at the Cannes Film Festival has been (re)created by Chimpidshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initially at Cannes Film Festival and Cinema of India before being moved). This page has been created under a variety of previous names by confirmed socks and raised at ANI before. Here are the previous ANI reports from Last April and September. This new sock has been around for about a month and has created an indentical copy of the previously deleted material. I'd appreciate if this could be looked at too. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    I am not a sock. And what is your problem Mr.User:Lugnuts, when some one has created a exhausted work on Indian films which won awards, and which were screened at the cannes film festival ?. On the other hand, If you suspect some one as sockpuppet, why dont you edit the article? what is your problem and why ru attacking new editors recreating content from previous sock puppet. This article is very essential. So you tell me where we can provide me this information in wikipedia about Indian films at cannes. Why are you against Indian cinema at cannes film festival ? You dont want to know which Indian films won awards at cannes? If you suspect a sockpuppet is creating the article, why dont you create a new article. what non sense is this? Chimpidshi (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And now this sock is harrasing me. I asked them not to post on my talkpage at 13:22 and they've added the same nonsense three times since being told not to. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that four times by reverting my removal of their comments on my talkpage! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've lost count now of the times he continues to post on my talkpage (someone take a look...) and it's now gone to personal attacks... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Next. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Nyttend. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User with low English level apparently misinterpreting others and failing to AGF

    I don't want to see this result in a block as I'm still thinking this is at least in part a good-faith misunderstanding, but the following doesn't seem appropriate for a user who has apparently been here on and off for close to seven years:

    It's obvious that this is at least partly to be blamed on Pldx1's insufficient level of English, and perhaps he/she would not be assuming bad faith on my part (and the part of the other contributors to the MOS:KOREA RFC) if he actually read and understood what we had written. I don't know how this is usually dealt with. I have come in conflict with users with poor English before, but in that case I could communicate with them in their native language and the problem was clearly not simply his/her poor English. In this case I'm inclined to think mentoring would be a better idea, but I am not in a position to do so at the moment even if Pldx1 were amenable to the idea, and I wonder whether a user who can't understand others' talk page comments but immediately assumes the worst is more of a liability than an asset.

    Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    When I have seen User:Hijiri88 using Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Ife to describe how he dislikes any contradiction about Korean topics, I have been slightly surprised: Ife is a Nigerian town, not a Korean one. When I have seen User:Hijiri88 using my own talk page to lecture me about blocks and so on, I have looked at his own block history and, maybe, I have not been so surprised. The next step seems to be somewhere between snow and a boomerang effect (I am quite sure that this is the right English wording, but I am open to any constructive criticism). Pldx1 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This was brought to my attention. I have to agree with the comment on the article's talk page - The Faulkner family or friends of the victims created the article as a way of bring attention to their campaign for justice.

    Whoever created the article has used it to brand a named person as a double murderer with no trial or conviction in a court of law. That is legally defamation.

    Nuke the article?

    Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless someone wants to go through the linked references and verify the article per WP:BLP, I agree with nuking it and encouraging the author(s) to start it over with properly cited statements. Without inline citations to verify statements (especially about the suspect), this is one big BLP violation (specifically, WP:BLPCRIME). clpo13(talk) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was begun 8 1/2 years ago, and even then the case was 27 years cold. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots18:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone with better wiki skills than me just nuke it or take it to AfD? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this 8+ year old article suddenly a problem? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots18:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the case would easily pass notability...certainly at the time (notability doesn't deteriorate, true?) and even now...a lot of the sourcing are likely in newspaper articles from the time (I'm sure there was huge newspaper coverage)...but there's still enough stuff on the web...article may need to be altered, but not deleted...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    the Faulkner family seem to have been happy to use Wikipedia to brand a person a double murderer without a trial or conviction. The fact that this went unnoticed does not change the fact that it could have got the wiki in hot defamation water. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloody lot of good it did them, if the mystery is still unsolved. Is the case notable by itself? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely notable, the more I look at it...just deal with any content problems the article might have...http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/letter-points-finger/story-e6frf7kx-111111431770468.48.241.158 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I've filleted it of all its cruft, promo, unsourced OR, trivia etc, leaving the sections that remain with an opening summary statement. Suggest the mentions of the George characater are revdel'd, and the article is rebuilt from scratch. it's obviously got a lot of potential; but not with Melissa or whassname in charge. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I call a stubbing, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, very well done! Thanks also to Paul Benjamin Austin for reporting and to Doug Weller for quickly removing the egregious BLP vio. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    If this is still a problem, please take it to WP:AFD. No admin action is required here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]