Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Someone is trying to name me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the article talk page Francis Schonken just wrote:

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

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

• Comment: I think this situation needs a third-opinion type of resolution. It's basically a content-dispute between two editors who don't see eye-to-eye, and trying to decipher who is causing the log-jam is I think really too long of an endeavor for ANI to figure out. Therefore, I would suggest posting an appeal for opinions on the WP:WikiProject Classical Music talk page, or go directly to WP:3O and post a request for a third opinion there. Alternatively, invite another editor(s) in who commonly edits on Bach articles -- say, Gerda Arendt, etc. -- and have them opine. From my own casual observation, I've noticed that Francis Schonken can go both ways in his editing style -- he can indeed sometimes create a toxic and domineering editing environment, or he can edit reasonably and rationally and collaboratively. To the OP I might have suggested that wholesale revision of an article is usually done best and easiest on a user-page draft rather than live, and that taking years to implement one kind of update is not ideal -- it should be done of a piece, so that the article stays coherent. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not really. When I wrote Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, I used the above book of Williams and Stinson's book "The Great Eighteen". For the Handel organ concertos I used the book of Stanley Sadie, etc., etc. Despite the smearing remarks of Francis Schonken, arbcom has praised my articles on baroque music. On the other hand, Francis Schonken was warned recently by two administrators about harassing Gerda Arendt, another Bach editor.[13] He's just repeating that behaviour towards another unfortunate victim. He seems to resent my expertise. Mathsci (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2016 (UT

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

• Observations of article talk-page behavior: For the heck of it, I just took an objective look at the article talk-page dialogue between the two editors (which has all occurred within the past week), and these edits are particularly egregious: [14], [15], [16], [17]. And they are all by Mathsci, and all from the past 24 hours. Mathsci, if you have been on Wikipedia for 10 years and have made 40,000 edits, and you still don't know how to behave in article talk-page discussions, I'd say you are a large part of, if not the source of, the problem here. Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Mathsci should direct comments towards content and not contributors. It doesn't matter so much at ANI, but this section should be titled "Disruption at Orgelbüchlein" without naming an editor. Before the current excitement, Mathsci had made 492 edits to Orgelbüchlein from May 2010 to June 2013, while Francis Schonken made one edit in February 2015. Francis Schonken should find someone who is actually damaging the encyclopedia before going into attack mode—leave the article alone and return in a month. Then ask for opinions at a wikiproject. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• Re: To Johnuniq's points: I think the OP fails utterly in his OP to make his case (not a single WP:DIFF of evidence, and definitely no substantiating of this bit of mind-reading: "Francis Schonken is aware that I was hospitalised last week as an emergency; and probably is aware that I have not fully recovered"). Moreover, Mathsci had not edited the article in three years [Edited to add: likely due to his recently rescinded site ban] before Francis Schonken came by this week and made a large removal: [18]. That said, Francis Schonken should not be removing text from a stable article (having the same material covered in the main article and the fork article is fine and there is no stricture at all against that), or quarreling against established reliable sources, or (what appears to be deliberately) interfering with what is now ongoing work on the article by an expert in the field who has apparently been adding to and organizing it for quite some time now, or making snarky comments on the talk page (Francis started the snark and attacks [19], and Mathsci then responded in kind). I agree with Johnuniq that Francis Schonken should probably leave the article alone, Mathsci should be able to return it to how he had it, and Francis Schonken should work somewhere else on Wikipedia. I don't think he should return to the article in less than two months, if at all, and if so at that point then only under the condition of engaging in formal WP:DR with the other editor. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC); edited 05:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with your summary. I have resumed editing the article after 2 1/2 years away from it. At the top of one of the main sections Orgelbüchlein#Chorale_Preludes_BWV_599–644 is written: The brief descriptions of the chorale preludes are based on the detailed analysis in Williams (2003) and Stinson (1999) with harvtxt links. 9 of the brief descriptions are complete and I have started adding the remaining 37. Those two sources are the main sources in the English language within current Bach scholarship. The act of putting a POV tag on an anodyne and scholarly article was disruptive; equally disruptive was the charge that major sources in current Bach scholarship were being deliberately excluded in favour of biased sources. To restore some balance from the real world, here is Williams' obituary in The Guardian, written by the Bach scholar John Butt; Peter Williams died in April. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• I deem the organisation Mathsci proposes for the article problematic (explained in part here). Instead of engaging in the discussion of that issue, Mathsci tries to govern the article content by {{in use}} templates (i.e. keeping them up between editing sessions), ignoring the topic when discussed (instead adding walls of text in talk pages unrelated to the topic at hand), engaging in inadmissible talk page behavior (see diffs above, repeated by Softlavender), removing tags without addressing the issue at hand, and the like. I'd suggest not to reinforce the editor's self-assigned presumptions w.r.t. to article content, but instead invite them to take part in reasonable discussion of the article structure topic. Mathsci has been there before, compare Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 41#Discussion of Clavier-Übung III at AN/I, and for the Orgelbüchlein: Talk:Orgelbüchlein#Religious POV.

Re. "large removal": nah, moving two stanzas to a hymn article as I did on Orgelbüchlein (see diff above) wasn't a "large removal". I performed similar moves (of more than two stanzas) in March (diff above) and also this one from 2014: [20]. If contesting the edit and there is an ongoing talk page discussion about it then take part in that discussion with reasonable arguments: pasting a {{in use}} template and filling the talk page with off-topic replies (crying woolf about "blanking" and the like) is far from an appropriate response.

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

• I suggest you all look at Francis Schonken's behaviour on Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 and his behaviour on Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4, including unacceptably copying to that page editors' comments on other talk pages with their signatures, refactoring them as he saw fit, and failing to provide links to the original context [21]. They are indicative of the kinds of problems Mathsci is facing. Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 is a Featured Article promoted only two months ago. One month after its promotion Francis started making swingeing changes to the content with no prior discussion [22]. This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title [23] and edit-warring [24], [25] to keep it there. The main editor objected to the page move and participated in the post hoc discussion on the talk page but Francis refused to participate any further in that discussion after less than a day and then unilaterally closed it. Instead of initiating a proper requested move discussion with wider participation, he festooned the article with maintenance tags and said he was taking it to FAR with the intent of getting it demoted [26]. The FAR was closed as out of process but he continued his bulldozing. The article is still festooned with tags and virtually all of its previous editors, including its main editor have been driven away. Its talk page is a now an unreadable mess and a place where Francis talks only to himself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A temporary ban from articles on the sacred music of J.S. Bach, broadly construed, might be in order. That would not exclude the lengthy article he wrote on the popular organ piece BWV 565, which has no religious connections and is probably not by Bach and not originally for organ. (Unfortunately closer inspection of BWV 565 shows that it is a very poorly written article for a large number of reasons: amongst them poor English with some sentences completely indecipherable; no proper treatment of the fugue, not even a musical quotation of the fugue subject despite 3 large images of the opening of the toccata—all part of a general absence of musical analysis; not using the main modern sources for commentary; quoting out of date sources not generally accepted within modern Bach scholarship; unduly lengthy content on legacy, such as Walt Disney's film "Fantasia"; and a blow-by-blow commentary on the source books in wikipedia's voice. This would not be so serious, except that Francis Schonken seems to think[27] that his article sets the standard for writing articles on Bach compositions.) Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse Softlavender's suggestion to take it to some form of dispute resolution. Mediation, third party etc. Nothing requires administrative action here - standard content dispute between two editors who don't see eye-to-eye. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Re. Softlavender's "... making snarky comments on the talk page (Francis started the snark and attacks [28], and Mathsci then responded in kind) ..." above: I fail to see any snark in the diff. I can only speak for myself – there at least I am sure: no snark of any kind was intended with that article talk page post. "Mathsci ... responded in kind" is not how I perceived this. I never felt any snarkyness or whatever of that kind, not in any kind, in Mathsci's responses. Matschi defended their edits, I defended mine, each from their perspective, but there was no atmosphere of snarkyness in any of that afaics. No "attacks" either in my talk page responses at Talk:Orgelbüchlein. There, as I explained, and has been linked a few times above, were some disallowed tendentious talk page headers in response, but that has long been settled.

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

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

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

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

These issues are pervasive in your editing and in your behaviour on talk pages, and it isn't restricted to the Bach articles. For example, observe your behaviour in this sequence of conversations: [29] [30], [31] over your edit-warring, aggression, and utter refusal to get the point on, of all things, a college's course page at WikiEd. And that's one of many examples. You have a lot to offer. Your edits are often very valuable and you are clearly dedicated to improving Wikipedia. But you do that at the expense of exhausting and driving off equally valuable editors from articles and making talk page discussions intolerable. Yes, improving the Bach articles is important but so is common courtesy, cooperation, and respect for your colleagues. I know it's not easy to find several editors criticising you in a public forum, but I encourage you to reflect a bit on what we're saying. If you don't, I'm afraid you'll end up here again and again. At the very least you'll squander whatever good will and patience other editors may have had towards you. This will be my last comment here, apart from opposing your topic ban. Voceditenore (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

Per Mathsci's analysis and proposal above [35], [36]: Francis Schonken is topic-banned for six months from Bach's sacred music, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Mathsci and per the problems noted by Voceditenore, Gerda Arendt, and others. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately the disruption has not stopped. On this article talk page (which I have not edited), there is continued edit warring, restoring mass copy-pasting of other editors' comments with time stamps from other talk pages.[37] Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL 25,000-byte talk-page post [38]. Always a sign of a collaborative editor. And yes, restoring it less than 6 hours ago shows the disruption has not stopped [39]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec) Only in death: Mediation requires consent from all parties, so would not happen. Although adding serious content to wikipedia might not be quite your cup of tea (326 content edits, mostly on fantasy worlds, war games, anime and manga), dreaming up methods to prevent others doing so [40][41] is not a substitute. Mathsci (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tx for coming back on topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. excessive images
2. excessive lyrics

Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes does not have that problem.

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

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

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

Francis, Mathsci was not referring to the bot with that edit, and you know it. He was restoring the material you had removed with no explanation as to why [42]. The endless bickering here between the two of you is distracting and counterproductive. Neither of you are doing yourselves any favours. I suggest you both cut it out. Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• Oppose, but not because it's a "blatant attempt to remove dissent as part of a content dispute" (as alleged above). The problems go well beyond Mathscii's original complaint. I oppose it because it's too broad, and too long. He's been a valuable editor in many of these articles, although not a valuable colleague. I suggest we give Francis some time to reflect on what's been said here, especially, my last comment [43]. At most a 1RR restriction on the Bach articles could be imposed, but in my view, it should apply to him everywhere, and ideally Francis should impose it on himself. Voceditenore (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Support: Francis has a longstanding pattern of disrupting articles and doing exactly what he has done here. He baits other editors, twists people's words, and generally engages in some very serious incivility and personal attacks. He also edits against consensus, consistently inferring that anyone's view other than his is wrong. Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose No comment on the appropriateness of some form of restriction, but because "Bach's sacred music, broadly construed" is such an awkward parameter (it's difficult to "broadly construe" such a narrow, specialized topic) this TBAN should not be logged as currently worded. It should either be "Bach's music, broadly construed", "sacred music, broadly construed" or "Bach's sacred music" (no "broadly construed"). I would be happy to withdraw this !vote if the wording is fixed appropriately or the current proposed wording can (somehow) be defended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps a temporary ban could help the editor try to contribute to other articles and get their procedures straight, their behavior has been rather brash from what I've seen and they should take some time off Anipad68 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is the open encyclopaedia. The first thing we tell new editors is to 'let it go'. Articles are under development by definition. How can we justify allowing a single editor to monopolize an article for years on end? As has been well documented, Mathsci has certain ideas about what the Orgelbüchlein article should look like. Others have other ideas and have raised issues on the talk page (like me). This is the second attempt to drive a dissenting editor away. Mathsci is hijacking Wikipedia to create a platform for his pet project(s) on Bach. What he is creating would make a great website, but it's not Wikipedia. I'm appalled that the question of blocking a dissenting editor for 6 months should even come up in this case. The problem clearly lies elsewhere, namely in repeated and belligerent attempts to keep well-meaning editors out. (And I'm not even going to address the condescending phrase 'drive-by editor' and raise the question how that is compatible with Wikipedia being the open encyclopaedia.) Zwart (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's not being monopolised or hijacked: it's being written, e.g. yesterday's edits. Here is Zwart's most significant edit to the article from 2012.[44] He read the following in the lede, "The Orgelbüchlein is at the same time a collection of organ music for church services, a treatise on composition, a religious statement and a pedagogical manual." He objected to "a religious statement" which he blanked as "religious POV pushing" along with most of the images. That sentence was an enlarged paraphrase of a summary in Stinson (1999, p. 25): "The Orgelbüchlein is simultaneously a compositional treatise, a collection of liturgical organ music, an organ method, and a theological statement." So just a paraphrase, not religious POV pushing. This provides context for evaluating Zwart's comments here and below. Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mathsci: the applicable policy is in WP:BURDEN (a part of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy): "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Yet you re-introduced the "religious statement" material twice ([45], [46]) without an appropriate reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't normally add citations in the lede as you well know. (The old article looked like this,[47] a bare list with errors in the lede and no inline citations.) Your comments here (and your mass tagging of BWV 4) sum up fairly clearly why your editing is going to be restricted. You have made a series of negative and inappropriate statements about Stinson (1999), an impeccable academic source. You've said the same about Williams (2003). You have also claimed that other contemporary sources are being ignored. If you penned a letter of complaint to Oxford University Press about bias in Stinson's book, it would go straight in the wastepaper bin (where it belongs). Both BWV 77 and BWV 4 had religious images in the infobox until I uploaded high-resolution images of the autograph manuscripts. So much for religious POV pushing (the claim you made when adding a giant POV tag at the top of Orgelbüchlein). Mathsci (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Strict BRD

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Restricted to 1RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Already answered above.[48] Zwart's drive-by edits to Orgelbüchlein (in 2012) involved blanking the phrase "a religious statement" from the lede, a simple paraphrase from Stinson (1999), who used the words "a theological statement". Zwart described this as religious POV pushing. Above Zwart wrote,[49] "Mathsci is hijacking Wikipedia to create a platform for his pet project(s) on Bach. What he is creating would make a great website, but it's not Wikipedia". Perhaps he's thinking of the Dutch wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent POV-pushing and active socking

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

---

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

Denghu is actively edit warring to claim his home town as the largest city in Europe, both with his own account and the sock account 194.28.238.3 [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. This is a beharioval issue, but as Denghu repeatedly claims in edit summaries that his is the WP:TRUTH, I point out that an RfC was held on exactly this topic, with the decision being to count all of Istanbul. As Denghu is actively edit-warring against the outcome of the RfC, and employs an IP-sock alongside his regular account, I think it's a behavioral issue for ANI. As for Denghu being the sock-master of the IP, it's an obvious case with both accounts doing exactly the same edits, sometimes the IP even starts and Denghu finishes it. Most notably, the IP even modified Denghus user page [56], removing any doubt about the socking. Jeppiz (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeppiz, I'm still waiting for an explanation concerning your claim my edits were 'nationalist'. You haven't provided any yet, and if you can't explain that I will consider your allegations ungrounded and inflammatory ad hominem attacks. Denghu (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you have claimed that "Most notably, the IP even modified Denghus user page [57], removing any doubt about the socking." Given that Wikipedia defines sockpuppetry as "an online identity used for purposes of deception" will you please provide evidence that I had the intention to deceive you or any other Wikipedia user. Denghu (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Those IPs are mine, I made edits without logging in, then decided to log in. I had no intent of hiding my identity. I access Wikipedia from two locations, and sometimes I do not remember to log in. Denghu (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

OK, we read the RfC closure as not deciding how footnotes should be placed, but as concluding that the full undivided population of Istanbul be reported in the list. So per that reasoning Jeppiz's edit accords with the RfC? The closer stated "Display the full population and note the split in footnotes where relevant" EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

===Evidence of socking=== I had thought not to comment further, but Denghu has been pinging me repeatedly. I've very rarely known EdJohnston to make mistakes, so when he said it wasn't clear 194.28.238.3 is a sock of Denghu, I accept the blame for not making it clear. So to answer both Denghu's repeated pinging of me and EdJohnston's comment, I'll address two topics. 1. Is 194.28.238.3 a sock of Denghu?, and 2. has Denghu used the sock contrary to policy? I'll show the answer to be yes on both accounts.

• Is 194.28.238.3 a sock of Denghu? These two accounts share a remarkable overlap of interests. Some large, but some very specific. Shared interests include

1. Russia-24, edited by Denghu [58] and by 194.28.238.3 [59].
2. 2014 Ukrainian revolution, edited by Denghu [60] and by 194.28.238.3 [61]‎.
3. Right Sector, edited by Denghu [62] and by 194.28.238.3 [63]‎
4. Non-native pronunciations of English, edited by Denghu [64] and by 194.28.238.3 [65]‎
5. Königsberg Cathedral, edited by Denghu [66] and by 194.28.238.3 [67]‎
6. Washington Obkom, created by Denghu [68] and edited by 194.28.238.3 [69]‎
7. Ofer Samra, created by Denghu [70] and edited by 194.28.238.3 [71]‎

The list could be made much longer, but I'd kindly ask EdJohnston (or any other admin) to consider the likelihood of the above list, including several very obscure articles, being a coincidence. I dare say it's the biggest WP:DUCK in Duckburg that one user is behind both Denghu and 194.28.238.3.

• Has Denghu used the sock contrary to policy?

Having more than one account is discouraged but not against policy. However, editors with more than one account should not use them on the same pages, and the above list shows this to be very common. And when Denghu and the IP both participate in reverting in the same edit war [72], [73], then it is obvious that it's a case of using multiple accounts in violation of our policies. To me, there's not a shadow of a doubt that Denghu and 194.28.238.3 are the same account, and that Denghu has used the IP 194.28.238.3 contrary to policy. Jeppiz (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Denghu already said the IP was his...there were no edits made in the seven minutes between his IP and his account's edits to the article so I'm not sure how even a purposeful use of an IP could be considered abusive/gaming the system. Time to move on. Sepsis II (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen Denghu acknowledge the IP to be his, just avoiding the question. The admins who have commented said they were unsure the IP was his sock, which is why I try to show it above. No admin has said that it is a sock used in accordance with policySepsis II, what about you stop stalking me? Yes, I gave you a warning for your constant edit warring. That's not a reason to stalk me. As you say, time to move on. Jeppiz (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for Denghu's clarification that two of the IPs are his. It does raise eyebrows to see Denghu and his IP both performing reverts in the same edit war at List of European cities by population within city limits. Now that the RfC has been clarified, I hope that the dispute on this article is over. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

My bad, I had not seen the edit. Thanks EdJohnston. It of course make this section redundant. Preferably, Denghu will abstain from using more than one account to edit the same article in the future. Jeppiz (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by IP editor

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

---

I don't really know what (if anything) should be done about this, so just raising it here. User:2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C says Wikipedia should be sued in this revision: [74]. Notifying on their talk page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• No, the post wondered whether WP could be sued. Honestly, this running around like the sky is falling anytime anyone uses any one of twenty words connected to the law is now way past ridiculous. EEng 09:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• If the alleged legal threat was the only issue, I think an unblock would be in order. As EEng notes, there was no legal threat, just speculation. Silly and unhelpful speculation, but not a legal threat. WP:TROUTing please for Amakuru, whose complaint misrepresented the IP's statement -- and for Dennis Brown, who should have checked more thoroughly before blocking.
  However, I just took a peek at the IP's recent contributions, and see that thy have been engaged in a prolonged content dispute, in which the IP's actions included blanking as 45KB article[75] with the edit summary Deleted Everything by HistoryofEthiopia and EthiopianHabesha since they have decided to Attack this Article. I'm not particularly inclined to unblock an editor who behaves like that ... but the block is for the wrong reason. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously I was aware of the disruption, but I disagree with your analysis of WP:NLT, BrownHairedGirl|BHG, which covers more than the direct "I will sue you" phrases, but also covers speech that is designed to have a chilling effect. This wasn't the worst case of a legal threat, but it was obviously trying to manipulate opinions using the potential threat of legal action to others, even if by a 3rd party. The totality of the circumstances, including previous behavior and the threat justified a block, in my yes. Anyone is free to take it to WP:AN for review if they so choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This was an obvious attempt at intimidation. "The End of this Story is that ERITREAN TIGRINYAS will Not Be called Nor Accept and Will VIOLENTLY DESTROY anyone Who forces Ethiopian Tigrayan Identity upon them!" is clearly an attempt to sway the content of the article with threats of violence. The block was correct, very correct. I find it hard to believe that EEng would suggest this is not block worthy. We don't let people intimidate others here. HighInBC 14:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ach, I agree that the IP was being a disruptive, aggressive, POV-pushing nuisance, and deserved to be blocked. I just think that this situation was at best marginal wrt NLT, and that the block should have been explicitly for being a disruptive, aggressive, POV-pushing nuisance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what kind of intimidation they were using, intimidation is intimidation. However I disagree with your interpretation. The comment was clearly meant to have a chilling effect and it did so with warnings of legal action and physical violence. This is not marginal at all, this block would stand without their prior behaviour, just for that comment. HighInBC 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It matters, because under your hair trigger interpretation of NLT, even good-faith expressions of concern about legality (e.g. at a copyvio discussion) could be called "intimidation". All this I'm-the-bulwark chestbeating is laughable. Just ignore shit like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 May 2016‎

Did you read the comment? Do you really not see the intimidation there? Check my recent contribution history[76] and you will see that I don't interpret good-faith expressions as intimidation. HighInBC 16:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That's just another way of saying that if you see something as good-faith then you see it as good faith. Regardless of intent, no one's actually intimidated, so why feed the troll and increase the paperwork load? You're one of a small group who sees LT where no one else does, and attach it's-a-big-deal import to what are just expressions of frustration. -- EEng 16:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, it's my block, I feel it was appropriate. Arguing here is pointless. If you want it reviewed, take it to WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made my point, I'm far alone in feeling this way, and someday common sense may prevail so time can be spent productively elsewhere. No review, obviously, since there are other good block grounds. EEng 17:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I just want to say I support Dennis Brown in this. The blocked editor clearly engaged in threat-of-violence intimidation that goes far beyond WP:CIVIL, and the perceived legal threat has to be evaluated within that context, which the admin, rightfully, did. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

William L. Uanna

User with declared conflict of interest (son of subject) is edit-warring over original research/trivia/puffery in article in William L. Uanna. See [77] [78] [79]. We've been down this road before both here at ANi and on article talk page, going back literally years, and editor is deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-land. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I posted some comments on the earlier ANI thread. I think you guys are being too bitey. I oppose the topic ban for now. We haven't engaged CIC7 all that constructively earlier or now, so we still have room to do so. COIN seems like overkill. Figureofnine also is edit warring in my opinion, reverting 3x in less than a day[80][81][82] and seems to be wp:owning the article to some extent over its history. Figureofnine, could you ease up a bit? CIC7 seems to have some good resources to bring to the article, and we should accomodate him to the extent we can, working with him to fix issues with his contributions that are incompatible with our approach to content. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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

I favor a topic ban for now but only as it applies to the article itself, not to the article talk page. It's his behavior in the article proper that is objectionable. Lastly I agree with the IP that there is an WP:OWN situation. CIC7 created the article and has dominated the editing of it. The last two of his five reverts yesterday were reinstatement of unsourced trivia removed by another editor[83][84]] including "One piece of advice his mother gave his new bride Bonnie shortly after they were married in 1948 was 'Keep him out of the sun, he turns black.' " I think that after six years this editor is aware that such material is not acceptable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I don't understand the problem with the first Kennedy diff above (I didn't check the second one). It looks like it restored some reasonable content about a well documented issue at the time (whether Kennedy's Catholicism would divide his loyalty between the Church and the US). It mentioned a speech that Kennedy intended to give at the Dallas Trade Mart, and quoted from a civil rights announcement. Those could have used citations--is that the issue? It took about 2 seconds to verify each with web searches[85][86] so I don't see it as a basis for banning.

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

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

Since your own contribs are hidden by your editing logged out, it's hard for me to determine the extent to which you may have edited this article yourself, apart from this[87] less than constructive edit restoring crap to the article, and with an inaccurate edit summary as the ANI was two years ago. What is the user name that you utilize when not trolling the drama boards? Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Hawkeye7, readers have a right to expect that articles not be written in collaboration with the subject or their offspring; I note that the original GA nom failed because of OR and also that this editor has edit-warred to keep OR and puffery in the article, which you made no effort to remove, over an extended period of time this week. I see that he was blocked for that. I note too also that his efforts to place a reference to his father being murdered, sourced to a fictional film and without a shred of evidence beyond that, also did not bother you one bit.[88]

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

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

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

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

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

I can understand someone else weighing the subtleties differently and deciding "nah", but the wikilawyering and confrontation that I see from Figureofnine (and now CTA) are what I described earlier as WP:OWN. In any case, CTA removed it again calling it "garbage".[89] I think that's excessive and shows a lack of objectivity on CTA's part.

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

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

WP:OWN? The subject's son created the article and [90] is responsible for four out of ten edits to the article on his dad. Hawkeye7 has another 23% of edits. Figureofnine 10%. No other editors on the page to speak of. I've added two tags and made one edit. Your continual false statements are disruptive, so please stop. Yes, this article passed GA despite violating site policies on sourcing. If I had a nickel for every time that happened I could probably start my own Wikipedia. This article should have been speedily failed, since the majority of footnotes go to documents uploaded to Commons, and I've commenced a community reassessment. Mr. 50, judging from how you have tenaciously disrupted a simple COI situation with false statements, personal attacks and trolling I assume that the user name you're not disclosing has quite the colorful history. Coretheapple (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of User:CIC7

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

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

• CIC7 has a WP:COI wrt to the article William L. Uanna [91]
• CIC7 is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, by publishing original research in relation to his father [92]
• CIC7 has been warned repeatedly about WP:NOR, WP:COI and other relevant policies, by editors who have explained the constraints and offered suggestions on how to publish the information in ways that could be used in Wikipedia
• This was the subject of an ANI discussion in August 2014: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#William_L._Uanna
• Many editors appreciate CIC7's intesrest in the topic and have tried to help CIC7 to contribute constructively
• Despite these long-standing warnings, CIC7 has been edit-warring in May 2016 to insert unsourced original research into the article wrt which he has a COI: [93], [94], [95]

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

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

• Support provided it's clearly understood that edits like this are encompassed by the topic ban. Not sure it is, as drafted. Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Coretheapple: my intention was that edits like that should be clearly covered by the ban, because if we only ban from the one article then content about William L. Uanna could be splatted across a whole range of articles. What I didn't want to do was to ban CIC7 from for example editing an article about somewhere his father lived to add content unrelated to his father. I hope that it is clear enough that adding such material such as that in your example to any another article would fall within the narrow construction of "related", but I am open to any suggestions for alternative wording to make things clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Understood. Perhaps "narrowly construed" can go. I'm just looking ahead to the future, as compliance is unlikely. This editor seems intent on his quest, which is why I advocated a site ban. In my experience such editors can be a terrible drain on the project, and you see aspects of that in the mucked-up discussion above and in the COI editor's comments below. I've commenced a community reassessment of the unwarranted GA status of this article, but it really needs to be gutted and properly sourced. I see no constructive contributions by the COI editor on the talk page, which he has used mainly to push his OR, and no effort to provide reliable secondary sources. A Google Books search shows at least two books discussing Uanna. Neither is even mentioned in the article, presumably because one of them, in a footnote, dismisses his son's conspiracy theory. This is the book, plenty of stuff on Uanna[96], published by the Naval Institute Press, some quite complimentary, but not a word on it in the article but plenty of tangential OR uploaded to Commons by the COI editor. That is what happens when editors rely upon COI editors for sourcing, and it belies Hawkeye7's comments as to what great shape the article is in and what a wonderful contributor the COI editor has been. Yes, wonderful if you ignore a COI's edidtor's agenda and are indifferent to the quality of an article's sources. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Stefanomione revisited

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

---

• Stefanomione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I am shocked that this was not a permanent ban.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• He just doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia (and in particular Wikipedia categorization) should be a collaborative process in which if one gets negative feedback one should modify one's behaviour - at the very least making sure that you explain what you are doing to other editors (in edit summaries and discussions). That he used a sock puppet at CFD shows that he doesn't have the right attitude. Whilst it's difficult to find examples of single edits that are clearly a problem he causes a massive amount of churn in categorization without (afaics) significantly improving categorization. E.g. adding a category that he later deletes.

Thus, I support taking action against Stef - one or more of: a ban from participating in CFD (for reasons explained above), a ban from creating categories, a ban from using hotcat, a ban from anything to do with categories, a ban from making edits without a proper edit summary .... Possibly the most useful remedy would be a ban on making more than than a certain number of edits per day (perhaps 20 initially) on En Wp - that would force him to consider his edits more carefully, make it easier for other editors to keep up with the amount of cleanup work he causes and possibly make him consider editing in his native language wp instead (perhaps he does already or perhaps, as was the case with a previous problematical categorizer, he's already been blocked from his native language wp). DexDor ^(talk) 07:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Some answers given by Stefanomione

• • • I work mainly in the field of Category:Main topic classifications, one or two levels below. Naming things on these levels is problematic for many editors. That doesn't make them problematic editors.
    • I start and re-organize on daily basis my own Category:Current events-creations. Take my (95 %) Category:Arab Spring-tree : events evolve, so does the naming of the Arab Spring-events. As creator and rewriter of almost all categories inside Category:Syrian Civil War (or should we say Category:Syrian civil war ?) and inside Category:terrorist incidents by perpetrator, I feel a lot of sabotage, not visible on my talk page. Organizing categories with contentious labels and content is indeed a risky business but doesn't make me a problematic or idiosyncratic editor.
    • I work also in Wikipedia.fr and Wikipedia.it : never discussed or blocked there.
    • For 2005 - 2015 : 6800 categories standing - 350 renamed, redirected or deleted.
    • The charts for 2016 : 830 category creations, 20 discussed on CFD, 2 kept, 12 pending, 2 renamed, 4 deleted = 0,41 % (trees included) of my 830 creations in 2016 dismantled.
    • The clean-up work after CFD : I eagerly take part in that.
    • Crowd intelligence : discussions about controversial (naming) issues bring progress.
    • What about this discussion [97] ? : first attacking me personnally, and then, reluctantly, defending my creation ...

Stefanomione (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • Support action myself I would be happy with a-300-a-week-edit-limit. This will force me to "sandbox before creating" and consider the excessively subtle linguistic distinctions (BrownHairedGirl) I make. Now, I have days with 400 edits. Stefanomione (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi, BrownHairedGirl. What about this discussion [98] ? One of my categories contested. The closing administrator advised to 'split the tree'. Subsequently, I contributed a lot to this new tree. After four years, both trees still standing. Stefanomione (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • • • Yeah that was one where I had to retract comments. I had made them because I was outraged that you had just had your one week block for sockpuppetry lifted and you immediately resumed creating categories that were at best clumsily named. Look at the that Cfd: "History events" is never going to work as a category name because it's so patently confused with events in history. So that's another stilted, clueless name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, Shawn, let's wait the outcome of the discussion [99]. Again, a naming issue inside Category:Main topic classifications. The category itself will be kept. Category:Philosophy events, Category:Astronomy events, ... : clumsily named, but not my creations. Again, why not attacking the tree instead of me ??? Stefanomione (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• I also am shocked that this idiosyncratic editor has not been banned indefinitely from category creation, before we get 'Works by work by paradigm'. Oculi (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I created Category:Works about ideologies and Category:Works by ideology. Idiosyncratic ? Maybe. Problematic ? I don't think so. Other editors then me completed the tree. Stefanomione (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Don't you even realize after all this time that your by your own admission "idiosyncratic" category work is a huge clean up problem for the rest of us. Many of us are sick of it. Categorization in the world's largest wiki isn't the place for you to be "idiosyncratic" at all? This isn't your crazy laboratory to try shit out. That doesn't get through. It'll never get through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree. Wikipedia categories need to be maintained a wide variety of editors, and used by a huge variety of editors, so they only work if they are clear and consistent, and supported by a broad consensus. An idiosyncratic approach just creates a headache for everyone else ... and Stefanomione is unable or unwilling to grasp that central fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• "I start and re-organize on daily basis my own..." is an insightful indication of part of the problem. That he does ceaselessly, daily continue with his stuff; that he considers certain categories his WP:OWN; and last but not least that he lacks the most basic language competence so as to omit the article "a" before daily basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 8:27 am, Today (UTC−4)

• And why the heck must we endure endless pointless debates with him about what prepositions mean in his of/in categories when he thinks "Working in this fields..." is correct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 8:31 am, Today (UTC−4)

• Support strong action. I suggest a complete perma-ban on any edits relating to categories, broadly construed: no editing in the category or categtalk namespaces, no edits which would alter the categorisation of articles, no editing of templates which would affect either of those two, and no participation at CFD.

Congrats to Good Ol’factory for bringing this to ANI. After 4 years, it's quite clear that this problem isn't going to get any better, and is actually getting worse. The sockpuppetry is a new escalation, but the tendentious, disruptive IDONTHERARTHAT editing is an ongoing pattern. After watching this for many years, I think that there are several WP:COMPETENCE issues involved, of which the two most critical are:

1. A persistent failure to communicate effectively in discussions. This may be an indication that English is not Stefanomione's first language, or an indication of something else; but whatever the cause, there are repeated examples that show Stefanomione does not use English effectively enough to allow them to communicate effectively in relation to the subtle complexity of the topic areas where they try categorisation. Many editors with poor English make valuable contributions by working within their limitations, but Stefanomione shows no sign of any willingness to learn those limitations.
2. A persistent failure to learn from previous discussions. The sort of categories which Stefanomione creates are characterised by excessively subtle linguistic distinctions which create ambiguity, such as the two astronomy-related categories ("Astronomical works" and "Works about astronomy") which Stefanomione created on 8 May 2016, and were discussed at CFD 2016 May 9. This is essentially the same linguistic issue discussed 4 years ago at CfD 2012 April 12. 4 years on, it's still groundhog day.

Sure, Stefanomione is cheery and polite, but the ongoing disruption is grinding down the ability of other editors to undo the damage. The 2012 ANI discussuion ended with a compromise proposal for temporary restraint, to give Stefanomione time to learn ... but no learning has taken place.

As other editors have noted, tidying up these messes place a huge strain on CfD, which has a declining number of participants, and too few editors willing to commit the time to building expertise in the field. I have long since given up trying to engage in CfD debates with Stefanomione, and now Shawn in Montreal posts above that they are also going to withdraw. If this continues, there will be a further exodus of editors willing to waste their time cleaning up after Stefanomione.

4 years is quite long enough for an editor to listen and learn. Time for a perma-ban on category-related edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Indeed, you bring up this naming issue inside the trees Category:Works about ideologies and Category:Works by ideology - The tree itself still standing and completed by other editors. In my opinion, we need some perspective here : why focusing on 0,4 % of my creations on CFD ? Of this 0,4 %, the content is still there, under a renamed category. Moreover, with my massive production, I appear proportionally very low on CFD : 2016: 20 times for 830 categories. Stefanomione (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Stefanomione, that comment is a good example of why you exasperate other editors. Let me enumerate some of the problems in that reply:

1. Categories are not content; they are metadata which organises content. Discussion about content belongs elsewhere.
2. The fact that 20 categories created by you have been at CFD this year is a big problem; that represents a lot of time wasted by other editors, cleaning up after you. You need to stop dumping so many problems on CFD, and remember that the higher your edit rate, the higher the accuracy needed.
3. 20 out of 830 is 2.49% ... not the 0.4% you claimed. Your sockpuppet claimed to be a mathematician, but a basic mathematical error like this makes that look like a fabrication.
4. The 20 categories at CFD this year are merely those which other editors have taken the trouble to challenge. As noted elsewhere, your "massive production" is itself a large part of the problem -- editors simply don't have time to take all yoir problematic categories to CFD.
5. If the categories have been renamed or merged, that means that you got it wrong and someone else had to tidy up after you.
6. Your reply is written in very poor English. Your why focusing on 0,4% is abysmal grammar. If you can't write good English, why are you naming categories on the English-language wikipedia?
7. This discussion includes lots of very experienced editors noting that your editing remains very problematic. Why do you persist in believing that everyone else is all wrong?

Those 7 points relate to just 80 words written by you. It's an illustration of why engaging with you is so time-wasting and energy-sapping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Thank You for calling me cheery and polite. 2 out of 830 = 0.24096385542 %. I put my "error-rate" for 2016 higher, at 0.4 % because of the trees: a dismantled parent-category involves sub-categories as well. Stefanomione (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That was my typo (I omitted the zero out of "20"; now corrected). The error rate which you claimed was 20 out 830, which is 2.4%.
As noted elsewhere, the problem is not just your mistaken calculation, but the dodgy assumptions you use in choosing the numbers to make the calculations. You appear to assume (wrongly) that a category is fine unless it is actually deleted, taking no account of mergers or renamings; and you also assume wrongly that a categfory which has not yet been taken to CFD is fine. Wrong on both counts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, and that's another thing: why, after all these years, when you surely should know better, did you invent the fake identity User:Tpetrosi, "a Pure Mathematician by profession," to intervene on your own behalf at Cfd. You've never acknowledged it. Never apologized. Nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support action. The sockpuppeting shows a complete unwillingness to reform. Pichpich (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Even in my dramatically reduced editing time, I still run across a confusing Stefanomione category more often than I could imagine possible. I think the low % of his categories that have been taken to CFD is more an indication of the massive number of categories he creates, not that there is broad consensus for the categories themselves. I'm sure the number would be much higher if someone had the time and patience to babysit every one of his edits, which is clearly an unreasonable ask of anyone. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm also not sure where these numbers are coming from. I am one editor who has stopped placing Cfd notices on his user talk page. 14:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• But then, this remarks don't fit well when considering this : my 2004-2005-2006-2007 creations almost NEVER appeared on CFD. Production then was 40-50 edits or 2/3 categories a day. Slower, but still massive. Is it technically possible to publish my watchlist detailing my creations ? If yes, I could prove the 0,4 % "error-rate" (= red marked deletions). Stefanomione (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

But that's part of my argument of why we have to shut you off. I didn't say you were never of help. But as I stated above, you have become a huge net negative at Cfd. The early low-hanging fruit work has largely been done -- @Fgnievinski: pointed this out to you back on May 3, at the Cfd for your now-deleted Category:Historical works. But you're unable to stop and you've become increasingly preoccupied with "idiosyncratic" experiments in x of/in y/ y-ian names that do little else than satisfy your own ego. You are, to put in mildly, going off the rails: I don't know if the Stefanomoine of 2004-2007 would have created User:Tpetrosi. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And again, "this remarks don't fit well..." Yet you're the one who tediously argues with us that we don't understand how you're correctly using English prepositions, etc.? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Oh dear ... here we go again. I will try again to unpick some of the points this latest round of Stefanomione silliness:

1. The fact that your category creations did not appear at CFD does not mean that they are good. It just means that no editor has yet challenged them. This may be because they are good ... but it may also be because editors were fed up with the time-consuming task of tidying up after you, and the brain-sapping exasperation of trying to discuss these issues with someone whose command of English is so poor.
2. You don't seem willing to consider the point made by others that you have declined from making good categorisations a decade ago, to your recent sprees of increasingly bizarre and convoluted idiosyncratic categories
3. If it is true that, as you claim, you made far fewer errors when you worked more slowly, then why have you speeded up and increased your error rate?
4. As I noted above, your claim of a "0.4% error rate" is based on a failure to understand percentages. Please learn maths before trying to use maths.
5. Your assumption that red-links indicate the sum total of your errors is mistaken. Inappropriate categories may be repurposed, or they may be redirected after merger or renaming.

It really is a huge waste of everyone's time to try to seek consensus with someone whose contributions are so persistently silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• I do see that Stefanomione states well above that he would now "Support action" against himself, so as to force him to restrain his actions here. Which seems to be another way of saying what I have been arguing from the outset, that he is not in control of himself. I have never seen anyone so obsessed with maintaining his influence over categorization, by any means. Let me put this another way: you need to find something else to do with your time -- or your life. You have just stated that you find yourself unable to voluntarily stop yourself from creating 400+ category edits per day. And again, now you've descended into sockpuppetry to abet this. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. You've been here a while but it is in everyone's best interests that you and this project now part ways. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Just an intro phrase, Shawn. Nothing more. Indeed, I'm there since 2005. By average, 300 edits a week. That is why I mentioned the number 300. I never descended in sockpuppetry, only accused of doing so. Never notified to come up with proofs. Strange IP-theft by some 6-edit practical joker, I guess. But back to the core of the discussion : the combination "being prolific" + "Main topic classifications" - "Current event classifications" - naming issues, ... as I said, the sandbox waits for me. Stefanomione (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Never notified to come up with proofs" is a lie. You were notified of this SPI. "Strange IP-theft by some 6-edit practical joker" is you suggesting that the reason checkuser confirmed this as a linked account to you is that someone hacked you solely to support you fictitiously at Cfd? You really expect us to believe this nonsense? Your persistent attempts to say, 'oh, well, the issue is not me it's this darn category name now back to the sandbox' is not going to fly. The "core of the discussion" is not one particular category name, it's you: a disruptive and frankly delusional problem editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Back to some perspective : 6500 categories bear my name, went undisputed, and, in my opinion, after 11-10-9-8-7-... year, never will be disputed. Fulminating against an error-rate of 0.4 % is out of proportion, especially for this Crowd intelligence project. My access-code to the IP-network was changed at 13 May 2016, 23.59 ... The complete story of this case remains unexplained to me. Stefanomione (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V:, we spoke briefly when I asked why you had only blocked this user for a single week at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stefanomione/Archive. Stefanomione is continuing to deny sockpuppetry, asking us to buy a story that "access-code to the IP-network was changed at 13 May 2016, 23.59" in order for someone to gain access to his IP, solely so as to support him at Cfd. As we are trying to determine whether any further good faith should be extended to this editor (I argue vigorously that it should not) I'd like to know from the SPI closer what to make of this hijacked account argument, which seems to me to be a rather preposterous lie -- but I am no expert in this matters. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed personnally the code to my home-network at 13 May 2016, 23.59 ... The so-called sockpuppet could not enter my home-network after 23.59, and he didn't. Shawn, there was never a hijacked account, but somebody working on another device (computer ?) using my home-network ... So, his device was very near my modem. Stefanomione (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

So you have a next door neighbour, who created an account, User:Tpetrosi, solely to echo your arguments at Cfd. And yet you have no idea who this might be. And never raised it during the SPI. And it's a mystery, you have no idea who this person might be. You're asking us to believe this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

From what I saw with the technical evidence, this is highly unlikely. In addition, it brings forth further questions, such as why this other individual knew that you had a Wikipedia account, the name of your account, and why the individual would have supported you in the same areas of discussion with the same rationale. Respectfully, I don't believe that Stefanomione is being truthful here. Mike V • Talk 19:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely, but technically possible without codebreaking or intruding, just by using my internet modem. Maybe I should add two more things : I run a bookstore/ library near an education center. That I am a Wikipedian is very well known to some 100-200 students or visitors, who surf freely on my network (code is put at the entrance). The name of my Wikipedia account resembles the name of the store. These are the plain facts. Very soon, I will install a private network. I regret this incident, the only one in many years. I take full responsibility for the incident. Stefanomione (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that took some time. Even if that's the case, the main issue here is the long-running behaviour in disruptive category creation, the disregard of community consensus to stop, indeed, the apparent inability to stop -- not the SPI, or any one particular Cfd alone. And I'm truly glad to hear that you're as busy as that. Because if I -- as I dearly hope -- we do manage to finally and permanently block you, once and for all, you have other things to occupy your time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Back to the main issue, indeed ... Could give an answer here, Shawn ... I repeat my question : 6500 categories bear my name, went undisputed, and, in my opinion, after 11-10-9-8-7-... year, never will be disputed. Don't you think that fulminating against an error-rate of 0.4 % is out of proportion, especially for this Crowd intelligence project ? Stefanomione (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Stefanomione ... for the love of god (or a non-god, if you prefer), would you drop this ridiculous 0.4% nonsense? As explained above, it is bad maths applied to a completely bogus set of figures.
And I don't believe this very belated explanation for the sockpuppetry, which you wheeled out nearly 2 weeks after you were blocked, and only when it is has become clear that this discussion shows 100% support for sanctions on you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I took full responsibility for the incident, took my sanction and didn't appeal that sanction. We are discussing something else here :

• • • Quote 1 (on this page) : Whilst it's difficult to find examples of single edits that are clearly a problem ....
    • Quote 2 (on this page) : ... not the SPI, or any one particular Cfd alone ...

So, not my contributions (6500 categories still standing) seem at stake, but the way I edit, not my creations themselves, but the way I create. Isn't that a personal attack on the contributor (not on the contributions themselves) ? Stefanomione (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If the unending torrent of category edits ever stopped, one day maybe someone might perform the monumental undertaking of sorting through all of them and we'll see how many of those 6500 categories still stands at the end. Currently, it's meaningless to point to them and say WP:ITEXISTS if you are the one who put it all there. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I count seven editors who support action to stop Stefanomione's category changes (Axem Titanium + BrownHairedGirl + DexDor + Good Ol’factory + Mike Selinker + Oculi + Shawn in Montreal) and no opposes apart from Stefanomione who has made 14 comments here without acknowledging the opposition. The complete disinterest in what others think shows the problem is real and an indefinite topic ban from creating or changing categories is required. It appears several months of peace and quiet would be needed for those working on categories to assess what should happen with Stefanomione's creations, with 224 new categories in April and May 2016 alone. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Make that eight editors. I would definitely support a topic ban of significant length. Pichpich (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

it does have to be permanent, in my opinion, I'm afraid. I believe we blocked him from using automated category creation tools for year, and he offered all the usual bromides about being more careful, etc. But eventually he's going to return to form. He's admitted he can't help himself. There's something very unhealthy about this relationship, and the degree to which one obsessive editor of questionable mental competence - sorry, but that's how I see it -- has been allowed to use the categorization structure of the English Wikipedia, one of the world's largest websites, as his (in his own words) sandbox. I think it's nuts that we let it go this far. I do feel that anything other than permanent is just kicking the can down the road, once again. And as has been noted above, it's important to keep in mind not just the time spent endlessly cleaning up after him at CFD, but how that time could otherwise have been productively spent elsewhere. Categorization at this Wikipedia must now enter the Post-Stefanomione Era, full stop. Thanks. I won't comment again, unless requested. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support action - I'm surprised the sockpuppetry alone wasn't enough to ban this guy. Parsley Man (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The word we tend to use here is "indefinite", not "permanent". That said, as someone else noted above, the general sense of I-didn't-hear that, is pervasive. Once several editors are involved, like at cfd, the editor then will start to negotiate, to try to get what they want, possibly under a different name or set of names. All the while editors are saying that the category is inappropriate.

Now to be fair, the editor will discuss, but let me give one example that didn't go to CFD - Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive/Works and media. The thing to note though, isn't so much the discussion, but rather how clear it makes it that the editor waded in, created a bunch of categories, all without understanding the underlying concepts at all.

Then CFD or a similar discussion becomes a group education session. I don't think anyone here would mind answering questions. But not after-the-fact, requiring cleanup of hundreds of categories. (This can disruptively affect existing structures that are undone by this as well.) We have "article for creation" and other such places on Wikipedia. But the category system, unlike most of Wikipedia, isn't as easy to reconstruct after a disruptive editor edits it. The edits are scattered across many pages, and if socking is involved, this can be an overall loss.

So all of that said, I Support a category editing ban (creation/modification, broadly construed). I would also Support mentorship, if someone was interested, though the tendency to jump in regardless of understanding makes me hesitant to predict that being a success. - jc37 08:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC

I'm glad you were fair and mentioned this discussion (Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive/Works and media). And then, remember, the massive renaming was done (almost exclusively) by me, without tools. But let me tell, it goes without explanation that I Support some kind of mentorship. Stefanomione (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that after 4 years of Stefanomione's persistent failure to learn the limits of their abilities, mentorship would just be a mechanism for some other editor to spend a lot of time and energy trying to explain to Stefanomione a set of concepts which Stefanomione cannot or will not grasp. That will just bring us back again to considering some sort of a ban.

Since the destination is clear, let's save all the community energy involved in postponing the inevitable, by implementing the ban now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I can, BrownHairedGirl, I can and I will grasp the set. Stefanomione (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a few examples of Stef's edits. Here he put articles such as this one about a naval attack in a category for airstrikes. He recently created Category:Categories_by_art (CFD) and related categories that (for example) put Category:Musical techniques in Category:Visual arts. Note: It's quite understandable when editors who don't specialise in categorization (e.g. those editors who mainly add content) don't categorize a new article perfectly (in fact, that's a good reason for keeping categorization as simple as possible - something Stef seems to be working against) - but Stef is an editor who works only in changing categorization (many thousands of edits) and still gets it wrong (whether that's by poor English, lack of understanding of categorization, a slapdash approach or a combination of all 3) - e.g. building elaborate unnecessary categorization structures that take a lot of editor time to dismantle (whilst also causing watchlist noise for other editors). Another example (from a few years ago, but he mentions Arab Spring categorization above) - he took 6 edits to add a category tag to an article (which had been well-categorized by the article creator) - and that category was then renamed by CFDS before being deleted at CFD. DexDor ^(talk) 11:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Also glad you mentioned this, DexDor,as it clearly shows that in the heat of the events where violence had taken over politics, I mean the 2011 spring - (Category:Arab Spring) -, I managed to leave only one white-noise element, out of 250 subcategories dealing with the revolutionary events which I "covered" on a daily basis back in 2011 (until now - The Arab Winter). Just to show the extent of the Arab Spring-tree (all mine) and the subsequent Arab Winter-tree (all mine) :
  • • Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War - 18 subcategories (all mine, minus 2)
    • Category:Military operations of the Syrian Civil War by year – 6 subcategories (all mine)
    • Category:Military operations of the Syrian Civil War by belligerent party – 11 subcategories (all mine)
    • Category:Consequences of the Syrian Civil War - 8 subcategories (all mine)
    • Category:European migrant crisis - 6 subcategories (all mine, -1)
    • ... and 204 categories more ... 1/250, which - strangely enough - brings up again my eternal 0,4 % white noise factor, which, I agree, should disappear. Stefanomione (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Stefanomione: AFAICS, most of the other editors participating in this discussion have made more edits than you; some have made a whole order of magnitude more edits than you have. So your repeated boasting about making lots of edits is unlikely to impress. And the your choice of words in making that claim is very unhelpful to your case.
As to your claimed error rate, how many times does thid need to be explained to you? That the fact a category has not yet been merged/deleted/renamed/restructured merely means that it has not yet been merged/deleted/renamed/restructured. It does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Stef, I don't understand all of your comment (I think your limited English language skills are part of the problem). Your continued (and afaics consistent) use of numbers in format "0,4 %" suggests that you have an extreme lack of understanding (and/or unwillingless to accept) the conventions of the English language Wikipedia (do you ever look at the content of En Wp articles?). I've just had a look at Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and see various problems with it - take, for example, Category:Italian involvement in the Syrian Civil War (which you didn't create) - it contained 2 articles neither of which belongs in it. If you want to do something useful in categorization then you could start clearing up these categories by removing articles from them where it is inappropriate categorization - e.g. here's one I've just done. DexDor ^(talk) 22:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi DexDor. I know. I'll clean all the subcats. Consider this discussion - and ... I didn't create Category:German involvement in the Syrian Civil War either . So, Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War contains 16 creations bearing my name (not 18). Stefanomione (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As devil's advocate on a fairly trivial issue — FWIW, I'm a native-English-speaking American, and I prefer using "0,4%" over "0.4%". (I don't really like Stefanomione's space before the percent sign, but I prefer the , for marking the decimals.) I don't see a problem with Stefanomione using their preferred number format on talk pages, as long as they can be understood and as long as they follow MOS in article space…. Goldenshimmer (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to clarify

@Stefanomione: Perhaps this will help:

1.) The purpose of the category system is navigation. It is not a "tagging" system to group things in as many ways as we can. That has been repeatedly opposed since the creation of the category system. This is reflected in policy. See WP:CAT and WP:OC in particular.

2.) a discussion here at WP:AN/I is usually more about behaviour than content. What editors are trying to explain to you above is that your behaviour - the mass creation/addition/modification/deletion of categories that you have been doing for years now - is seen as disruptive and counter-productive.

3.) Counting your number of edits has little bearing in this discussion. Indeed, repeating the vast amounts of edits to the category system which you have done, which, even after several years, we are still working on cleaning up (see this for example), is not helping your case at all.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 20:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

And no, it's not lost on me that even this discussion is another "i didn't hear that", educational discussion. Though in this case, while I think it's fair to note the editor shouldn't be required to understand this page, I think the fact that this discussion is comparable to previous discussions of their lack of understanding of the category system, is telling - jc37 20:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jc37. I acknowledge all that has been said on this page. To help in the clean-up, I will publish the list of all my creations (special website - 120 pages) before Friday the 3th of June. I hope I can participate in the brush-up. Stefanomione (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Stefanomione, the idea that you might "participate in the brush-up" is precisely what I want to avoid. It's quite clear from this discussion and from your latest edits (some of which I listed below) that you simply do not understand what the problem is ... and that since you don't understand the problem, any attempts by you to fix it will just create an even bigger mess to clean up.

If you want to help, just stay away from categories entirely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Stefanomione's latest contribs

While an editor's contributions are being discussed at ANI, it's likely that they will be aware of heightened scrutiny, and take a little extra care in their edits. So I took a look at Stefanomione's contributions so far today. The problems leap out at me, but here's a sample:

1. 09:19 — Category:Counterculture added[100] to Category:Political works, and head article Counterculture also added[101] to that category.
   Not all of the counterculture is political, and much of its is not a creative work -- for example, Category:Counterculture contains Gay Liberation Front, Battle of the Beanfield, Slacker, and various biographies -- none of which are "works" in the creative sense.
2. 08:37 — Category:The arts and politics added[102] to Category:Political works.
   Most of the contents of Category:The arts and politics are not actually works; they are about social movements or types of art.
3. 08:13 — Category:Politics in popular culture given[103] a new sort key for Category:Works about politics.
   Of itself, that seems innocuous ... but I see that it was Stefanomione who added [104] that category back in 2012. The problem is that Category:Politics in popular culture is a topic category which does not belong in a set category such as [:Category:Works about politics]]. The three articles which are not in subcats are Black president in popular culture (United States), Political parallelism and Politics in The Simpsons, and none of them are works.
   Similarly, Category:Politics in fiction is (correctly) a subcat of Category:Politics in popular culture ... but significant chunks of its content are not "works".
4. 08:11 — Category:Political literature was removed[105] from Category:Political works and media by country.
   I noticed that Category:Political works and media by country was redlinked, so I investigated why: it was deleted at 10:44, 29 May 2016 by the admin Anthony Bradbury as "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". Sure enough, Stef had tagged[106] the page for G7 deletion, and it was Stef who had created it [107] in 2012 ... but the page had been edited by 2 other editors, so it didn't meet G7. The admin missed a trick in not checking the history, but Stef should not have made this unfounded request. This out-of-process deletion of a 4-year-old category suggests that Stef may be asserting some sort of WP:OWNership of the categories they created.

In that brief trawl, I spotted a lot more of these subtle miscategorisations, but I don't have the time to write them all up. However, those 4 examples from Stefanomione's work in only 6668 minutes today illustrate the depth of the problem, because those errors are being done while Stefanomione is under intense scrutiny here. How bad does it get when the spotlight is turned off? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Very Frustrated The frequent unclear or strange changes is wasting time especially given the huge volume. The premise that a low percentage of these changes has been undone strikes me as hollow since the CFD process has such low participation. I wouldn't mind helping a new, low volume editor clean up the terribly named Category:History events but the attitude is that it's my job to clean up Stefanomione's mess with tons of arguing with other editors in that discussion but no attempt to fix an obviously misnamed category. (Go ahead and link my edits to that conversation; I come by far the closest to agreeing with you on that discussion.)

I'll defer to the other editors on the best action to take here. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And like I said - generally people leave me and my work alone even on Wikipedia. To the first-time offenders I tell them just what I wrote on the AN page. Hardheads that do it again I stomp on, and repeat offenders I report to administration - and THEN they go bother somebody else - especially since blocking entire ranges of an ISP in the big city or major university is pointless. [108]

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

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

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

Especially when I re-inherit my cadre of graduate student assistants who will like nothing better than to re-revert everybody's reversions all day long everyday - and then hang up every twenty minutes as well to get a new IP. [109]

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

Then there's this:

1. Major university professors who are tenure-protected do not "seek consensus" or "discuss controversial changes" with A) kids who could be their students B) people who have little to no personal knowledge about the subject at hand and C) are only interested in following a process/flowchart. I've been telling my students and trainees for 50 years: The world is full of clones. Do your best not to become one.[110]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still they're consistent

And then I'll reboot my internet, get a new IP address and go back to what I was doing. You guys can't block everybody on Verizon, AT&T or whoever, and if you do the reverse (block every page on Wikipedia from being edited only by people logged into the system), well, then you've just shot yourself in the foot and violated your own reason for being on the Internet. [111]

That was just this April.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to EEng for the catch. BMK (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean riled up in a bad way. I was actually hanging out with a friend named Riley earlier and the "riled up" expression sorta carried over from that. No offense! Doc talk 06:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

None taken! BMK (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Content dispute that belongs if anywhere on the article's talk page, not here at ANI, but since there is no precedent to ever posting a list of foreign titles of English-language films in a wiki article, this case is dead in the water anyway. Please note: The IP is a former registered account who has returned to disrupt Wikipedia and who made threats against MarnetteD a year ago: [112]. Make of that, or do with that, what you will, including the fact that the IP stressed there that IP-hopping would be his next ploy. Definitely not WP:HERE, and definitely here to disrupt. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• The IPs complaint is a content dispute (and, as you say, "dead in the water"), but the suggestion for a BOOMERANG is not. Your evidence just adds to it. 'Nuff said. BMK (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to open a SPI on this one? We could simply block per the WP:NOTHERE information page, but it seems as if there is admitted socking here... Doc talk 06:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Socking and LTA and apparent IP-hopping (or intentions to IP-hop). Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The statement that gets me the most is at the end of this post.[113] Not good at all. Doc talk 06:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please take your attitudes back to the Castro and East Village where they belong. Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is just a stupid "contribution" from an IP with a very poor editing record: both WP:BATTLEFIELD and WP:NOTHERE apply. MarnetteD is certainly among the best editors we have on Wikipedia and should not have to put-up with nonsense like this. David J Johnson (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well reading the IPs post with my morning coffee is a treat :-) My thanks to everyone who has replied to the them. The only things I have to add are that I should have added WP:INDISCRIMINATE to my edit summary about the list at the SoM article and the fact that the IP still does not feel that WP:RSing is needed with their edits shows a WP:NOTGETTINGIT mentality. Finally, I am just an unpaid volunteer (with no pretensions to anything) like everyone else. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unpaid?! Drop Jimbo a note on his talkpage, and he'll sort that out. I get $1 from him for each and every edit. Ker-ching. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Only $1 per edit? You been swindled, Lugnuts. Jimbo pays me 1 million dollars per edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And now we know who to blame the fundraising banners on. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Should 66.102.157.201 be blocked?

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

---

NE Ent's close of the discussion above as a content dispute is defendable, but only barely, because the discussion had clearly moved on to the question of whether 66.102.157.201 should be BOOMERANG blocked for all the reasons given above: NOTHERE, BATTLEFIELD, INDISCRIMINATE, NOTGETTINGIT, NPA and so on. If the IP was an account, an indef block would be in order, but since it's an IP, a long block (i.e. a year, perhaps) should be considered. BMK (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: For all the reason given in the archived section above, 66.102.157.201 should be blocked for a long period of time, to be determined by the blockng admin.

• Support as proposer. BMK (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support especially based on commentary below. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 05:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per what Ebyabe and BMK have already stated above. Based just off of the responses made on this page that I've repeatedly reverted (here, here, and here) -- this demonstrates battleground conduct, uncivil behavior, and makes clear that the user intends to continue engaging in disruptive behavior and evade the block, which is behavior that correlates with those who are not here to help. As BMK stated, if this was a user, he/she would be under an indefinite block. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think we have a legal threat here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support The user appears to be too arrogant, opinionated and uncivil to have much of a future on WP. The reverted comments on this very page are enough to demonstrate that.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support The IP has been at it for almost a year, time for a boomerang to fly. Kleuske (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Any logged in user would have been blocked long before now with this style of editing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support block of 66.102.157.201 (talk · contribs) and also Semi-protect his target article or articles for a good stretch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support A chunky block of the IP. Threats to repeatedly 'hang up' and keep getting new IPs, and to encourage the others to do so, is grounds enough, let alone other factors raised above. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support This IP has gone on far too long with threats, arrogance, general disruption and encouraging others to disrupt the project. An indefinite block, together with protection of the articles is called for. David J Johnson (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Arrogant tool needs to be taught a lesson. oknazevad (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per general intransigence and legal threat above. TimothyJosephWood 19:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support on WP:CIR grounds, for being clueless enough to think he's fooling anyone with the "professor" act. Funny how people who huff that they're academic bigshots always use language never heard in academia (such as tenure-protected), people who insist they're lawyers never know the difference between libel and liable, and so on (though for whatever reason, "doctors" usually turn out to be doctors, in my experience). I think it's cute that he seems to be using dialup, and my guess is that he's drunk. EEng 19:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Well warranted, though keep in mind that IP blocks can be wack-a-mole. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Block the IP editor and semi-protect pages as needed. Threats to disrupt Wikipedia are a good enough reason by themselves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Snow, much? EEng 23:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Findings: (1) 66.102.157.201 (talk · contribs), 66.102.146.179 (talk · contribs), Koga Sterant (talk · contribs), and Max Trahan (talk · contribs) all appear to be the same person. (2) The OP in the thread above has stated they will IP-hop/sock. It seems to me that this thread should be re-opened (before someone one-click archives it) and that an SPI be initiated, and yes, the two IPs should probably be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• The two named accounts are matches for Citrus Party (talk · contribs). All already blocked. Checkuser can't link named accounts with IP's and am not seeing enough to make that link solely on behavioural grounds. However the IP's have a solid history of sock threats, refusal to follow en-WP policy and general pointless hostility. There is no indication that they will stop behaving this way despite repeated requests, so I've blocked the latest one (x201) for a month to prevent the continued disruption. Hopefully that's long enough for the problem to rectify itself, but let's wait and see. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, let's see what develops. BMK (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Development is that they are getting even more battleground-ey. Probably should revoke their talk page access, since they're obviously not going to use it for anything productive. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 18:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Am reluctant to block the talkpage of an IP. Will revisit in a few days, or if they get a lot more offensive. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance, but I think you need to do it, since the IP is simply waving red flags trying to get someone to charge at him. Definitely trolling at this point. BMK (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm contemplating ignoring him and his alleged huge staff, in the hope he gets bored. Ranting on an IP usertalk seems pretty harmless. But am not that fussed - if anyone else wants to remove talkpage access on the grounds of disruptive trolling, they should do so with my blessing. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WHAT!!! Ignore the huge phalanx of grad students he's going to have lined up (real soon now) to disrupt Wikipedia!!!! Oh mercy, is there no one left who cares?! Who will there be now to protect us from the deprivations of his hideous strength?

(OK by me.) BMK (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The resolution is simple: Remove the page or we do this forever :)[114]

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

And now, add personal attacks to the list. [115] Zhanzhao (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive edits from dynamic IP

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

---

One user from IPs starting with 2a02:a446:83c2:0 (the end rest is different each time) has been editing the page Netherlands national football team whenever a new squad is released or after the team plays a match. The problem is that his edits always include a wrong birthday for one of the players (Jeroen Zoet). Examples: [116], [117], [118]. These are just some of the most recent examples, it goes back much further. I can't talk to him or warn him on his talk page because his IP keeps changing. The article has been semi-protected before, but during that time he continued editing from User:Jurre27:[119]. I tried talking to him on his talk page then, but he didn't respond then either. Is there anything you can do about this? Kinetic37 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The IPv6 addresses appear to all be under the range 2a02:a446:83c2::/64 - I'm looking up WHOIS information now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, they all seem to be under the same ISP and location. To make things easier on everyone, here a list of the IPs and changes made to Netherlands national football team:

• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:3d12:e192:ef6e:8c74
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:4011:aaac:53ef:737b
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:65f9:460a:b5b6:2f69
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:7001:a401:fc1a:360e
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:a914:a5b5:c34:f144
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:d9ad:7d71:e704:6182
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:24d7:b862:e9dc:22c4

Range: 2a02:a446:83c2::/64

Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Obviously, I didn't include the edits made by Jurre27. Still trying to find definitive proof that the IPs and the user are the same person. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kinetic37, this is an issue that needs to be handled at WP:SPI if you haven't already don that yet. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• The IPs have been rangeblocked by Vanjagenije for one month for disruptive editing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

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

---

User:Spacecowboy420 has a habit of using profanities in their edit summaries and has a history of content removal. This is uncivil.

1. 10:35, 30 March 2016‎ (UTC)
2. 10:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
3. 10:59, 23 March 2016‎ (UTC)
4. 09:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
5. 12:03, 20 May 2016‎ (UTC)
6. 10:59, 23 March 2016‎ (UTC)
7. 09:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
8. 14:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
9. 09:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
10. 13:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
11. 14:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
12. 10:40, 29 February 2016‎ (UTC)
13. 10:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
14. 10:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
15. 06:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Imeldific (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note This user recently attempted to take the notified editor to AN3 for edit-warring; Imeldific was informed by Ian.Thomson that in fact Imeldific had "been reverted by a second use[r] (which puts [Imedldific] closer to edit warring). You do indeed appear to be a single purpose account. Although I wouldn't go so far as to call your edits vandalism, they certainly do go against WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV." Suggest that this is a retaliatory effort where a previous noticeboard failed. Note that many of the edit-summaries are perhaps robust, but not directed at editors, merely the content. Whereas, indeed, Imeldific's accusations of incivility and accusations of 'content removal' (generally unsourced fancruft, promotionalism, and trivia, I note) may be unfounded enough to amount to a severe lack of WP:AGF on his part. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Imelda's recent electoral victory is relevant to the historical value of the article. The inclusion of which is being hijacked by this content dispute. Imeldific (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You're forum shopping because your edit warring report was declined on the grounds that Spacecowboy420 wasn't edit warring and that you are indeed a singular purpose account editing against policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously unrelated behavior. And that user has a history of disruptive editing. There is also an active discussion about the (un)controversial content which the said user has yet to respond. Imeldific (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting that the filing editor has struck through their original complaint (and the only remaining item is under duscussion on the talk page as a content dispute), can I suggest that this is immediately closed as withdrawn by nom. Also suggest warning for the nominator for wasting other editors' time and energies with a groundless post. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No... It's pretty obvious that this is just another revenge report. Also, Spacecowboy420 clearly hasn't been on since well before you posted that a few hours ago. It's not that he's ignored you, it's that you've been impatient. As for the accusation of disruptive editing, please provide WP:DIFFs to prove it. Profanity from three months ago that you had nothing to do with doesn't really establish that. Also, striking out your posts is generally interpreted to mean that you no longer affirm their content. In other words, if you really meant to strike out your entire first post, that means there's no issue here and we can close the thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Unban/Unblock of Doughnuthead

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

---

Hello. To whoever reads this, I am the former operator of the Doughnuthead account. I feel that, now at the age of 19 and no longer a pre-pubescent teen, I am more than capable of functioning like an everyday bloke on this site. Given the time lapse, I wasn't sure where to post this, and this was one area of the site I could recall so I'm just putting my request out here in the hope someone in the community would like to help me join Wikipedia. Thank you. --2A02:C7F:280A:1800:E979:5984:850E:6EEB (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page on the user account here, you were indefinitely banned by the community on August 6, 2012. To appeal your ban, you need to follow the directions given on your user talk page. Visit this page for instructions, or refer to the message on your talk page in order to properly file an appeal (basically, you'll use your account to send an email to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee). Good luck :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

But were you still socking up until October last year? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I just saw this as well. Regardless, you need to follow the directions I've given. It'll be up to the subcommittee to determine the acceptance or denial of your appeal. Please know that evading your block or ban intentionally will not help your appeal... I understand that you probably had (and maybe still have) questions; I don't see your post here as something that would be used against you, but your sock puppetry record surely will be. I will assume that you're trying to legitimately do the right thing (and we appreciate it!), but don't make any more edits until you've been officially OK'd to do so! Log into your account and go straight to the proper place and follow the directions! I wish you the best of luck and a fair appeal process. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. -- GB fan 14:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Lowercase sigmabot is malfunctioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Davestapp

Davestapp (talk · contribs) is clearly a single-purpose editor. I suspect that he's an employee of Diana Meltzer's who is charged with promoting Beat the System (band). While I usually don't mind insiders pushing bands, because they can offer good sources that might normally be missed by our editors, this editor has shown little understanding or regard for copyright because he claims that "the picture belongs to the band". Apparently the editor is compelled to add photo credits when adding those copyrighted images to the band's article: here and here. This looks like the photographer has reserved some rights and the band does not own the images outright. The editor either needs a mentor, or to have edits watched by someone who can vet them, or to have someone with more patience than me explain the issues. Again, those issues are WP:SPA/WP:COI and copyright violations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm always happy to offer mentoring, if it's determined that this user should have it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:70.68.199.80, at article The Heart Wants What it Wants

This is about this user changing a particular sentence in the lead portion of the article, and has done so several times now: [120] [121] and [122]. It's merely about changing the meaning of the sentence to imply something that is not true, and I've repeatedly mentioned this in my edit summaries which reverted the change, plus I've brought it to the article's talk page. I've even invited the user to participate in the discussion over at their talk page, but the user has not made any effort to communicate on any of the talk pages (including mine) regarding their edit, and just keeps restoring their version in the article. I'm not thinking they even get that they change the meaning of the sentence. As I point out on the article's talk page, their change could also be seen as a BLP violation (as Selena Gomez is not part of the production team called Rock Mafia, which may be implied with their version of the sentence), and is the reason for my reverts in the article.

I'd rather not keep dealing with this user for this one issue in the article, but I also want to make sure that statements made about people, per the BLP policy, are not taken in such a way that will question its accuracy. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

MPFitz1968 - This edit here is a simple grammatical change, and makes no difference to the meaning of the sentence (the user just didn't put a comma after "Antonina Armato"). This edit simply changes the fact that Gomez either provided additional song writings, or if he wrote more than that. The last edit you provided changes the statement that Antonina Armato and Tim James produced the song as well as wrote it. This appears to be a content dispute, and a very small one. The IP made only three changes over two weeks to this article, so no edit warring is occurring. I think that you should assume good faith and understand that people may interpret words differently. A block on this IP isn't going to do anything, as the user is making a change at the rate of about 1-2 times per week. What's wrong with just fixing the article to be accurate towards the source and just leaving it at that? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrator comment - I agree with Oshwah's assessment. You need to take this through WP:DR if you want to resolve this matter. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-administrator comment: I have to disagree, I'm afraid; the IP's changes do indeed change the meaning of the sentence with respect to Rock Mafia (whatever that is) by making "who collectively ..." apply as well to Gomez. I'm assuming MPFitz1968 is correct in saying she's not in that, which is also suggested by the fact the clause calls it a "duo". MPFitz1968 has tried different formulations and has opened a talk page section; the IP isn't seeing the implication. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have looked again at the IP's most recent edit [123], and I failed to notice the phrase "along with", which had been in previous versions of the article (which the IP had removed in other edits). There is a different meaning to the sentence with that phrase in it than without. It separates Gomez from Armato and James in terms of the sentence structure, thus not "collectively" putting Gomez in with the other two as part of the production team Rock Mafia. I restored that IP edit to the article, and will retract the warning I gave the IP. I will say that it's not the best way to express the song's writing credits in the article, and can leave others (even myself) to improve it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing by User:GunturIrawanSub

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

---

Hello, the user seems to be renaming pages without consensus and has a pattern of disruptive editing if not occasionally vandalism. -- H^akan·IST 10:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• He seems to be a clairvoyant, too. Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely by Bbb23, a checkuser block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Mussoorie call girls

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

---

While patrolling new pages, I ran across an Indian spammer who has been creating inappropriate pages such as 98151 rishikesh 32422 call girl service in mussoorie escort services in mussoorie call girls. The pages, which seem to be advertising escorts in Mussoorie, are filled with incoherent repeated text, and have long titles with phone numbers in them. Recently, Syuvi463531 (talk · contribs) and Singhyuvi696222 (talk · contribs) have created seven of these pages between them, which I tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense, although judging by the deletion log, this spammer is prolific, and I can vaguely remember similar pages being created as far back as 2012. My question is: does any administrator or other user know anything more about this spammer? Is it a human sockpuppeteer, or an automated spambot?

Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is a spambot, I usually just tagged the page for deleteipn, then tag the author at AIV as a spambot. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are spambots. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:NYBCchimps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spyker120- Compromised account?

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

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

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

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

Persistent Harmful editing by user Koala15

Please Note: I reported this on the page for Vandalism as well, I felt reports at both of these pages were necessary. I could be wrong since I don't report much as I try to work out problems I face by talking them out and only feel reporting necessary if a user ultimately refuses to cooperate with others.

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is continuously making harmful edits to the page Khalifa (mixtape) and Wiz Khalifa discography. The user was asked multiple times to stop making edits without providing references, specifically changing the title of Khalifa (mixtape) to Khalifa (album) and removing the project from the Mixtape section and adding it to the album section of the Wiz Khalifa discography page. He's been asked multiple times to provide sources of physical distribution of the project in question, to prove that it is indeed an album rather than a mixtape, but the user continues to ignore. But I didn't stop there, I even added a new section to the talk page of Khalifa (mixtape) to discuss the issue, which the user also ignored. The user continuously makes edits at their own discretion with no explanation and no attempt to work productively with other users on the site, acting as if Wikipedia were their own personal sandbox. Weweremarshall (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

That page move was two weeks ago...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

One of them was, but it dates back a little further than that. I've been trying to get this user to cooperate for over a month, I got back from vacation today only to find out he was still making whatever edits he pleases at his own discretion. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Article editor marks all edits minor and ignores talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I removed the script and left a note to not restore the script due to it being abused. Not sure what authority I have to do so, to be honest, but I'm claiming it based on this discussion and WP:IAR, and the desire to not have to block him. Let's see what happens next. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • • • Great alternative, Dennis Brown. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Marking all edits as minor falls under 'disruptive editing' as it effectively removes the edits from oversight (as a lot of people have hide minor edits checked). Persistant refusal to stop doing so in the past has resulted in blocks *after* the situation has been explained to the editor and they keep doing it. In this case since the user is not actually communicating at all, you might need to end up blocking just to get their attention. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • No admin has done the obvious yet, which indicates either (1) they don't care and/or (2) they're all on holiday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Bugs, there's also possibility #3: that admins are watching, are not on holiday, and do care, and have already warned AE to engage with ANI[124] ... but that these admins note that Article editor (talk · contribs) has not edited since that warning post was made, and is prepared to give that editor a chance to demonstrate good intent before using a trigger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It's hard to believe this is the first time in 10 years that he's been warned to not mark all his edits as "minor". As for not editing since the most recent warning, maybe he's on holiday, this being Memorial Day weekend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Its also a Bank holiday weekend in the UK so 3 day weekend. Lots of people go away/make plans. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
            • The thing is that this is not a drive-by, it's an editor who's been here 10 years. So I must assume that the first time he edits again with a non-minor edit tagged as minor, they'll block. Either that, or come up on him from behind and issue a "stern" warning. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Still, a block isn't the first choice. I think my boldly deleting that script and leaving him the message I did is sufficient for now. And yes, I'm hopeful he will just get the hint and stop doing it. Blocks aren't universal problem solvers, as you very well know. We warn first, unless the action is so bad it requires an emergency brake. This isn't that kind of situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                • To add, I'm wondering if the bulk of others using that script are doing so properly, or if the primary reason is like the above, making it a MFD concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                  • When questioned about it recently, his response was "calm down". Not a lot of good faith in that response. The question is, how important is the matter of marking non-minor edits as minor? I don't weed minor edits in my watchlist, so to me it's of no importance. But for some, it would be. And continual refusal to abide by consensus amounts to disruption. If he's warned repeatedly but doesn't get blocked, then he has no incentive to change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                    • You do know that I deleted that script from his *.js page? That is the first time I've done that to an editor. What he does next will tell us what faith he acts in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                      • So he would have to purposely select "minor edit"? It will be interesting to see if he does that... and to see if anyone does anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                    • Is there any way to remove the "minor" flag from all of a user's past edits? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Question about when I searched on Google.

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

---

Today on Google, i typed in a search for Julian Knight. The first search was for the article, but at the end, it had the term - "melbourne" attached to it. This image. Its a bug but why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.19.88 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not affiliated with Google, so we really can't tell you about anything that happens on their end. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was just able to repeat this. Even if it's not necessarily on our end, it's certainly odd. If it's actually an error there's usually a feedback button somewhere we can hit to report it. Anyway, I suspect it has something to do with Wikidata entries for the articles on the two subjects: Julian Knight and Hoddle Street massacre. What is interesting is that Julian Knight (politician) has no location next to it in the Google results. I'd be interested if this is repeatable with any other topics. I can't think of any test searches at the moment, though. Anyway this isn't an ANI issue, but it's something that probably should be escalated somewhere. Even if it's not a bug, it would be helpful to know why Google is displaying that since it would be helpful in editing biography articles and Wikidata entries in the future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User just back from block

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

---

Egorg13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Egorg13 has just come back from a 1-week block for repeated recreation of articles about non-notable Georgian footballers- in the edit summaries of the now deleted articles, they said they were working on behalf of the footballers. Block ended yesterday, and today they've recreated at least 3 of the articles (Giorgi Tevzadze, Lasha Parunashvili, Otar Kiteisvhili). They are clearly not listening, and should be blocked for longer, preferably indefinite as not here. Pinging Doc James as he performed last week's block. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

One of them appears to be copied and pasted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Unabated disruptive editing by IP jumper

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

There are more, but these are the most recent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User falsely reverting perfectly good edits as "test-edits"!

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

---

Page: Ray Combs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ebyabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Bogus note left on my talk page: [126]

This user seems to believe, falsely, of course, that just because I'm a dynamic-IP-based editor, my perfectly valid edits are "not valuable" and are only "test-edits." Doesn't this fall under some kind of WP:UNCIVIL or "do not bite" clause?

My perfectly valid edits on Ray Combs include the removal of stray hyphens, the forming of proper s-ending possessives, the removal of an obvious redundancy, improving some kludgy wording, and acknowledging that people have more than one spinal disc. Why should they be rudely thought of as "tests" even though they're obvious improvements?

So will you please instruct this editor not to revert these completely valid edits as if they were "tests," since they're actually valid, sound edits, and then block her or him for a while?

174.23.160.130 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [He/she hasn't posted anything to the talk page, so see our edit summaries.]

@Favonian and Sro23: who also reverted this editor. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sro did, but Favonian didn't. 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It didn't seem like a test edit, but was it worth edit-warring over? Assuming that all the very similar IP addresses are the same person (WHOIS seems to think they are), you broke 3RR over a fucking hyphen? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, #1, unobservant space cowboy, I didn't break 3RR.

2: Sro already edit-warred, and I reported him at the warring board, and then someone toddy came in and claimed that the previous wording--not just a hyphen--was "better," but the proceeded to reedit unrelated material from that wording, including the hyphens, so I reverted that because he had edited the other stuff besides just what his issue was in his summary.

So #3, where's your warning to sro?

And #4, this is obviously not just about hyphens, and you would know that if you had actually paid real attention. 174.23.160.130 (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:: Note that this is also at ANEW here. MisterRandomized (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a different report. That was about sro's edit-warring. This is about ebyabe's bad behavoir, which couldn't be put with edit-warring because it's a different kind of bad behavior. 174.23.160.130 (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As a block-evading sock IP, shouldn't this whole report (and every other piece of content from the IP) just be removed? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I just noticed. You're full of it. Four reverts, all changing hyphens. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• IP blocked for edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:. Given that he/she IP-hops, please could you protect the page that he/she edit wars over. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ray Combs‎.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

The Rambling Man's behavior

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

---

At Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg, TRM starts calling people lazy for not searching for free images of dead people or not making negotiations with copyright holders of certain images. Worse, he keeps rebutting "keep" arguments until he replaced a non-free image of Sally Brampton with a newer one. Was that intent sarcastic, or was it just unacceptable behavior? I could not tell by looking at those messages. Perhaps TRM can explain. --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The word "lazy" is used several times but I did not see any that were directed at a particular editor—saying "User Example is lazy" would be a minor violation of WP:CIVIL, but saying "We should not default to choosing any old image of a dead person one day after they die simply because people are too lazy to do any work to get a free version." is not. The page is called "Files for discussion" and people should be able to say what they think. Indeed, at another point TRM says 'I have no "influence", I'm arguing a position.' which seems very reasonable. Have you tried engaging with the points raised? At any rate, a report at ANI needs diffs rather than a link to a long discussion. By the way, the current section heading is not a model of civility. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've too have read the discussion and it seems to me that there was laziness on your part and with others. TRM tried to make the situation work, even taking the time to approach Surrey Council who adjusted the copyright so as to allow the image on Commons. That is not the work of someone who is behaving "pompous" or "uppity", but someone who is willing to go the extra mile in order to make a good situation out of a bad one. No case to answer here, and I've changed the uncivil header to a more neutral one. Cassianto^Talk 08:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved administrator comment - I see no wrongdoing or violating of policy by The Rambling Man in his comments on that discussion. I propose a swift trout to George Ho for being so quick to bring this to the "drama board" when TRM is simply pointing out our policies, and appropriate usage, of our fair-use images. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Vote X sock report

Taken care of by someone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could an admin take a look at 86.151.48.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which I suspect is Vote X's latest address, and complete WP:RBI? Thanks. Tevildo (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ye eunuch

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

---

Blocked user that is vandalizing their talk page with disparaging materials. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Access revoked. Widr (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

and deleted revisions. -- GB fan 12:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue with User:Supreme Genghis Khan and the sockpuppets is getting worse. Would writing an LTA report help people to identify it and stop the vandalism faster? TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 12:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Banned user now blocked and locked for good. :) KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 13:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Long-term abuse by IPs - Cartoon category and template spamming - resumed

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

---

See previous March 18, 2016, report by EvergreenFir at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917 § Long-term abuse by IPs - Cartoon category and template spamming. Result was this range block by KrakatoaKatie. Range block has expired and editor has resumed as

• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:A436:4913:F485:8B73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:D40D:855F:88D3:4EF1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:2852:2934:DF4C:711F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

basically same edits as before. Request that the range block be reinstated and extended. It appears that his editor is the only one using this /64 IPv6 range so there will be no collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it's the same range. An admin should be around to re-apply the block soon. You can also report this to AIV and include the range so that it can be handled by someone there. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Did just that. A lot of admins are uncomfortable doing range blocks even with IPv6s where most of the /64 ranges are the same person. ANI may flush out admins who are willing to range block but don't see transient AIV reports. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Administrators: The range of these IPv6 addresses is 2604:2000:a005:1f00::/64 ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that a link to the previous block log was posted with the range already calculated. Haha, sorry. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• A longer history of the abuse can be found here. This range doesn't have much (any?) block collateral damage from what I can tell. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• An IPv6 /64 subnet is almost never shared but it's always good to check. :) In this instance, it's obvious that there is only the one user. As they have continued where they left off and as this has been going on for so long, I have blocked the /64 range for three months for disruptive editing.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Reporting User:Puffmuffin for disruptive editing on Quetta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Mjroots:

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

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

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

• @Zarghun11: The phrase in Pashto is related to personal abuse,one of the harsh abuse use by pathan, meaning to fucking someone.Zarghun11 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

@Dennis Brown: doesn't look fully protected to me [127]. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Vandalism by Pizzaandchips11, Violation of 3RR

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

Here are links to the edits: [128] [129] [130] [131]

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

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

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

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

Legal threats (and more) by Commonsenseyes

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

---

• Commonsenseyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In addition to the COI edit-warring at Piotr Nowak and potential sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Commonsenseyes), this user has now begun making legal threats. See diff for an example. I haven't reviewed the material in-depth to see if there's a legitimate cause for removal, although it does appear to be sourced. Either way, legal threats and edit-warring with a clear connection to the subject (see here) isn't the way to make changes. ~ Rob^Talk 18:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for the threat, for warring and socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Poirot Holmes

Can someone help me. I am dealing with an apparent good faith editor (see [132]), but could be a vandal, whose ramblings I do not understand and I don't want to be unprofessional. For example, I get messages like this from him/her:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC disruption

It's hard to think an RFC remains valid after the concerted and constant disruption of it by User:CFCF: [133], [134][135]. —Kww(talk) 01:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incidentally, even if it's true that the editor being discusssed won a court judgement against their former attorney due to breach of contract, this little relevance to either the Matrix or Terminator articles. Note that the editor is apparently using wikipedia in court cases which while understandably being rejected, is another sign that great caution needs to be taken and of a strong COI [136] Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

The second is the claim they won a judgement against their former attorney due to breach of contract. There's a link to an alleged court judgement on an unreliable site [137]. Beyond the fact it's impossible to verify that this document is genuine and hasn't been modified, it actually has little relevance to either the Matrix or Terminator articles. It's a default judgement because the person they were suing never responded, perhaps because they were dead. As far as I can tell, there wasn't any real consideration of whether the copyright claim had any merit or could have been won. Especially interesting is that the court didn't award any damages on the possibility they could have won the case since Hollywood accounting meant both franchices lost money. The money they were allegedly awarded (and I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the document is genuine) was based on the fees and judgements against them as a result of their earlier failed court case and incurred for the new court case.

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

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

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

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

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

Inventor(s) of the World Wide Web?

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

---

This has gone on for weeks now. One editor is edit-warring a fellow Belgian Robert Cailliau in as the co-inventor of the World Wide Web. He was involved early, but not initially. See Talk:World Wide Web.

An account Bongo76 (talk · contribs) was warned for this and the same edits are now coming from a narrow range of IP addresses. It's a content issue where persistent edit-warring from a disposable IP triumphs (as always) over long-term registered accounts. It's beyond ANEW, SPI or RFC to resolve this, so I bring it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotected for ten days. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Odd stuff at Musahiban

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

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

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

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

User:Antamajnoon

Recently Antagmajnoon, a new user to Wikipedia, accused me to Wikihounding on my talk page after I reverted two of their edits, but has so far refused to provide any evidence. Both my reverts were in line with the consensus on the pages, and I was 'thanked' by other edits for my reverts. Antagmajnoon has now begun to trace my edits and has admitted as much here. My edits to the Libertarian Presidential Primary 2016 was reverted here and to the 2020 election here. I have a long standing interest in politics and elections on Wikipedia and Antagmajnoon has never shown any interest in these pages before. Antagmajnoon has accused my summaries of being misleading which is not the case. They have also begun to make similar comments on @Rebbing:'s talk page. Antagmajnoon clearly intends to violate WP:HOUND and to disrupt the edits of other users, and generally undertake disruptive editing. I'd like to nip this in the bud before it develops into something much more serious and disruptive. Ebonelm (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, this stems from derivatives of the page wedlease where User:Rebbing has without proof argued that wedleases are hypothetical (I know of at least one jurisdiction that practises wedleases). Since Rebbing has repeated the notion that wedleases are hypothetical on at least 8 namespaces, the onus is on him to give references, citations or some substantion, otherwise it seems he's inventing and making stuff up. I invited them to discuss on Talk:Marriage without reply. Antamajnoon (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Antamajnoon as a  Confirmed sock puppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hawaan12/Archive for background. After being permitted to keep the account of their choice, the user has gone out and created yet another sock account. I've also blocked Ninefive6, the account they were allowed to keep, and tagged all the accounts.

User Kamran the Great and Persian Gulf vs Arabian Gulf

Context (1) the name of the Persian Gulf is disputed, see Persian Gulf naming dispute which explains why a widely accepted name is disputable. Specifically, Arab countries (on the west of the water), don't use "Persian Gulf", they use "Arabian Gulf" or "Gulf". Iran (on the east) uses "Persian Gulf" and doesn't recognise any other name. It might be policy-compliant (WP:WIAN) but I don't think it makes Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia to search out every occurrence of "Arabian Gulf" or "Gulf" and replace it with "Persian Gulf", especially in articles about Arab countries or activities, where such persistence might be construed as POV-pushing. Context (2) User Kamran the Great was blocked indefinitely on 2 Jul 2011 for "Disruptive editing: Apparent Wikipedia:Single purpose account in promoting "Persian" in every instance" [138]; the block was lifted in 21 Sep 2011. My problem: Kamran the Great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to do little else on Wikipedia except changing "Arabian Gulf" to "Persian Gulf". On 20 May 16 he edited Kuwait [139] (an Arab country) to replace Gulf with Persian Gulf. He did the same on 30 May 2016 [140] including deleting an explanatory footnote referring to the Persian Gulf naming dispute article. On the same day he corrected Arabian Gulf to Persian Gulf here [141] and here [142] (an article about a Bahraini). On 22 May 2016 here [143] the Arabian peninsula, and here [144] about Qatar, an Arab country. On 20 May here [145] about an Arab company; here [146] about an island off the UAE; here [147] about a building in Saudi Arabia. I could go on - a glance at his contributions is enough to show hundreds of similar edits. Some users have asked him to desist, e.g. here, here; Kamran is unfailingly polite and cites policy. Summary. The name of the Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf/Gulf is contentious. The issue has come up before in 2012 at DRN, with User Kamran the Great accusing another editor of being tendentious by changing "Persian Gulf" to "Arabian Gulf", but I don't think in that discussion it was understood that Kamran does almost nothing else on Wikipedia except make edits to do the reverse. To search for every instance of "Arabian Gulf" or "Gulf" and replace it with "Persian Gulf" is tendentious itself. Is it POV-pushing? In my opinion this user is a WP:SPA; the user is continuing an activity he was previously blocked for; and the user makes edits that are disruptive. Questions Is Kamran's behaviour acceptable or sanctionable? How might I ask Wikipedia to introduce a policy that the use of the term "Arabian Gulf" or "Gulf" is an acceptable geographic name in articles about Arab countries where the term "Persian Gulf" is not used locally? (Disclosure: I have edited Persian Gulf naming dispute myself recently). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest a RFC involving the appropriate wiki projects. Advertise it at WP:CENT to draw as much outside opinion as possible. Perhaps it might even something to be discussed at WP:VPP. Those would be my first suggestions. Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)