Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.153.133.193 (talk) at 13:04, 27 February 2016 (→New sock of User:Dragonrap2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    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

    Trolling again from Hengistmate

    Hengistmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Plasticine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I recently fixed a minor spelling in Plasticine from fuse to fuze. This is a specialist term in military history. The correct spelling is somewhat contentious (see long past discussions at Talk:Fuze and related articles) as the z spelling is specific to that field and widely accepted within that field. It is usually seen as the correct spelling, "fuse" being either incorrect or at very least confusable with fuse (electrical), and fuze is never seen as incorrect for these devices. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue.

    Hengistmate rapidly reverted my correction. When I restored it he reverted it again in minutes, removing the relevant link too (as [[Fuze|fuse]] piping "fuse" to link to "fuze" was presumably beyond even his chutzpah).

    With any other editor, I would have taken pains to explain the significance of the spelling, with reference to the past Talk: discussions, and the fact that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for use with this term. However this is Hengistmate – a self-declared expert in military matters (see User talk:Hengistmate) who is certainly already familiar with the subtleties of this issue. An editor with whom I've also had extensive past problems, including his blocking for repeated socking: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive.

    This is not edit-warring. This is not a content dispute. This, given the editor involved and their past history, is simple deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I seem to have unwittingly blundered into this content dispute having made (what I believed to be) a legitimate revert. Judging from the discussion currently taking place at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse there does appear to be a valid and proper discussion over the spelling of fuse/fuze. Without commenting here on who is right or who is wrong, on the basis that there is an ongoing discussion, I would suggest that this ANI be closed as no further action. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC
    • Re-opening this. Thanks to Ed Johnston for closing this (below), but the issue has kicked off again.
    result=No action needed. Please continue to discuss at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse. Hengistmate has not edited the article since 31 December. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC) }}[reply]
    This issue was raised on 30 December and was ignored for some time. An independent editor, 86.145.215.191, restore the fuze spelling, which was again reverted by Hengistmate. They took no part in the discussion at Talk:Plasticine, nor responded to the ANI issue here. They were active, they continued to edit other articles.
    Minutes after Ed closed this, Hengistmate again reverted and even inserted an inappropriate wl to the DAB page at fuse.
    This is an editor who knows the technical background to this issue, that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for the major articles, and who has a track record of blocked repeated socking simply to troll me. For them to ignore an issue for the duration of their exposure at an ANI posting, but then dive straight back in within minutes of that going away - especially with an edit so simply unconstructive as to replace a correct link with a DAB link (whatever the spelling issue) - this strikes me as sheer BF editing.
    Those interested are invited to read the discussion at Talk:Plasticine - but this is still here as a behavioural issue about one editor, not a content matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • De-archiving this. I have tried to help out with the content dispute, and it has become clear during extensive discussion that there is an issue with the conduct of the OP.
    Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has misrepresented sources [3] [4] [5], and repeatedly made the same uncited edit [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
    As well as the false accusation of "trolling" made above, he has now issued false warnings for disruption [13] [14]. As advised in WP:DE and WP:HA, I am reporting this here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC); edited 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A little reminder, you're required to notify other editors if you raise them at ANI. Why didn't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOOMERANG, by bringing this back here User:Burninthruthesky is ignoring established consensus and is trying to turn a content dispute into an AN/I matter simply because he dislikes said consensus.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    142.105.159.60 has also inserted this WP:UNSOURCED change, [15] claiming there is consensus for it. Suggest Boomerang served in the form of a warning. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC); edited 08:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC); edited 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're just trolling.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang

    Andy Dingley's personal attacks against Hengistmate are continuing, [16] and are now being extended [17] as well to Ymblanter after they kindly protected the article (and who apparently speaks seven languages). This is unacceptable, please block this user. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Let us also point out that Hengistmate vandalized [18] the article on artillery fuzes in an effort to push their views on the matter. No one is innocent here, you least of all.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I didn't. I edited the article so that it reflects the sources - the "real" O.E.D., as recommended by A. Dingley. Please discuss this calmly, without attacking other "editors". Plenty are already doing that. Hengistmate (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't believe that this issue is still rumbling on after several months.
    I'm also surprised that Andy Dingly and several others contributing to the edit war and discussion are not aware that when an admin protects an article, they are not endorsing the version of the article so protected but are only forcing discussion on the talk page (of which, in this case, there is no shortage!). If an admin changed the spelling and then protected the article - that would be an abuse of admin privileges (protecting an article to enforce his prefered version, though I have seen it done in a case where the admin was directly involved in the edit war - very naughty). 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving along: Request closure of his thread as a content dispute

    The spelling of "fuze/fuse" is a content dispute. The content dispute needs to be worked out with some form of WP:DR, not an ANI discussion. If you need a suggestion of which WP:DR to use, I suggest WP:RfC. If there are any repeated or longterm behavioral issues that have not been able to be worked out via collegial discussions or WP:ANEW, I don't see them presented here by either side of the issue. All I see is a clear content dispute and edit-warring. If there are further sockpuppet allegations to make, make them at WP:SPI. Can we close this now with no action? Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Both sides seem to agree that WP:This is not a content dispute. The actual content dispute is trivial – there are sources that support both spellings. Andy Dingley admits [19] that one of them is military WP:JARGON, but chooses to ignore what the MOS has to say on the issue and keeps rehashing his view that one of them is "wrong", [20] [21] [22] [23] despite the fact the spelling he dislikes is supported by the OED. I expect the dispute would have been settled before I got involved if he were able to satisfy WP:Verifiability with his view. The failure to do so is WP:Disruptive. He says himself [24] that we don't reword cited text to follow our own POV, yet there are 7 diffs above showing him doing just that. Furthermore, he started this discussion with his baseless accusation that his opponent is "trolling". Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter what "both sides" (and that includes you, on one of the "sides") want to characterize this as, it is a simple content dispute and edit war. Not one single effort at WP:DR has been made. The full protection of the article is going to end in 10 hours, at which time the tiresome edit-warring will resume. I would like to request that this thread be closed and the disputants advised to handle it via WP:DR. The closing admin may or may not want to indefinitely full-protect the article until such time as some form of WP:DR has been implemented and completed. In the absence of that, edit-warring should be dealt with at WP:ANEW. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    From DR, this is the forum for resolving a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. WP:Disruption is a behavioural guideline and WP:Edit Warring and WP:No personal attacks are conduct policies. It's clear to me this is a long-term behavioural issue, so unfortunately I'm not surprised by this user's block log. The content dispute has been exhaustively discussed at Talk:Plasticine, but not only there. The last diff above is five years old, and relates to the same argument [25] suggesting the full OED (which not everyone can easily check) somehow contradicts other English dictionaries, including those from the same pubilsher. Protection of Plasticine has not put a stop to this [26]. I fear that closing this thread with no action will result in more of the same. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "[E]xhaustively discussed" is not WP:DR. That's why nothing has been resolved; not a single form of WP:DR has been utlized, and the only way to resolve it is through WP:DR. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The return of Hengistmate

    I expanded this, with an additional source (Hogben) and with a corrected quote from Jappy. On a single page, Jappy uses the "fuze" spelling 11 times.

    As anticipated, Hengistmate then promptly edited the page, "Have corrected spelling of fuse to reflect sources." He deliberately broke the direct quotes given (scans are available) to yet again, push his agenda of the "fuse" spelling. Now whatever the virtues of the two spellings in general, in this case we have verbatim quotes from two sources about the same very specific item, using the fuze spelling and using it widely throughout two books.

    This is simple trolling. Hengistmate has a long history over some years of such attacks against me and has been blocked in the past for his socking in doing so. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Both edits above are inappropriate. There is no clear consensus for changing the spelling, and DAB links are not generally correct. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We work according to the sources. Both sources here very clearly use "fuze". Why are you advocating going against these sources? Your own edit mis-represented Jappy as a source for "fuse" by quoting a bit of random blurb from the Amazon website, in direct contradiction of what the book actually uses. Why would you do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jappy synopsis displayed by several booksellers led me to believe the original (August) edit was already supported. Regardless of sourcing (there are sources supporting both), I still believe there is a valid question over use of either the technical spelling or the dictionary spelling. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No one cares what you "believe". We work here by what WP:RS authors (Hudson, Hogben, Jappy) have stated in reliable media. They have all widely used "fuze" for this context. If you can find any comparable sources showing "Y fuse" in relation to German air-dropped bomb fuzes of WWII, then please show them.
    A carelessly quoted publisher blurb on the Amazon website is not RS and is not evidence to contradict the very book it is describing. Jappy uses the term dozens of times in the pages in relation to this issue, always as "fuze".
    I see that you have changed your past false statement that the OED gives "fuze" as an 18th century variant spelling for powder train fuses and you now give it as the spelling for the sophisticated mechanical fuzes introduced from the 19th century. Although you're still missing the point that this was the introduction then of mechanical fuzes, not merely a variant for powder train fuses.
    There is a broad issue, hammered out long ago at Talk:Fuze, Talk:Contact fuze and Talk:Fuse (explosives): fuze is correct for devices of this type. Even that though is over-ridden here by the simple fact that the RS describing this specific use and the fairly brief and narrow events in question were all described using "fuze", for which we should then follow suit. Even if this had been some WWI / WWII difference, or an ENGVAR issue, we would favour "fuze" here because that's what the RS for this event all use. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No one cares what you "believe". You've made it clear that you don't, but under policy, all editors' valid concerns about policy should be taken into consideration. Once again, you are pushing your interpretation of the OED that is contradicted by other Oxford dictionaries. Sources do not "all" use 'fuze'. See [27] and [28]. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, if your reading of the OED entry for "fuse" is that it only applies to powder-train fuses, [29] how can you claim "The OED supports fuze" [30]? You can't have it both ways. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the above commentary on this diff is a complete misrepresentation of my edit, and the OED. The entry for "fuse, n.2" says "Forms: Also 17 feuze, 18 fuze." The key to these abbreviations is freely available here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that Hengistmate included some quotes from references in his edit which actually supported the 'fuze' spelling, but then followed the words 'fuze' in each case with '(sic)' indicating that he believes the author used the wrong spelling. This must qualify as editing while ignoring what the references say because you think you know better. If that is not trolling, and clearly edit warring to edit against the references that he himself provided, then I don't know what is. If we all edited what we believed to be a corrected version of any references used to support articles, Wikipedia would soon be in a mess. Hengistmate should be blocked for pure trolling. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]



    * Proposal *

    Hengistmate (talk · contribs · logs) is blocked from editing Wikipedia for clear trolling on the grounds that he uses three sources to support his edit, but deliberately misquotes all three to support his trolling. Further, he marks the quotes from the sources claiming that the respected authors of all three works do not know their craft.

    86.153.133.193 (talk)

    It's far from a content dispute - have you read the talk: page? (and Glrx's rather extensive addition of sources today). When one editor simply changes refs he doesn't like to their inverse, then that's behavioural. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've provided no diffs as evidence of that statement. There is more than one editor on each side of the opinion divide. It's a content dispute; settle it as one. The fact that many of the disputants are using the content dispute to cast aspersions or seemingly settle or revive old scores simply compounds and prolongs the content dispute, which could have been resolved days ago if WP:DR were used. Bringing these disputes to ANI just wastes everyone's time and energy and compounds the problem further. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I did provide a diff, but since you missed it, I will repeat it diff.
    Note also that I have ammended the proposal above, though I have not changed the intent of the proposal, but only the supporting text to more accurately reflect the extent of the trolling. It was inaccurate before because it suggested he was deliberately claiming that one source was wrong, when in fact it was three sources. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    An IP in London later changed all those spellings in the sources [31]. There's so much nonsense going on that the only way to resolve any of it is with WP:DR, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "provided no diffs"? They were given on the talk: page and you were pointed to them. If you still need some examples, try these: [32] [33] [34] Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, for a variety of reasons. I'm not really impressed with the parties to this dispute broadly, nor with how they have turned the most trivial of content distinctions into grounds for a contest of wills which obviously speaks a lot more to the personalities involved than to the needs of the project. I'm not sure I agree with Softlavender that there are absolutely no behavioural issues at root here, but I do agree that this ought to be resolved as a content issue (using RfC or other community mechanisms to generate more discussion and a clearer consensus as necessary)--and, to the extent that the involved editors have failed to approach this issue in an appropriately mature and productive manner, there is more than enough blame to go around. Snow let's rap 09:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional information, Despite this ANI, Hengistmate is continuing his trolling. With this edit, Hengistmate changes the spelling back to 'fuse' but also changes the spelling within the quoted fragments of the sources to make it appear that his spelling is sourced, when fact the sources are no longer what they actually say. Although the edit was carried out by an alternate IP address account, it is clear that it is Hengistmate as he deletes the entire section using his real account just nine minutes later claiming that the source does not state what it actually does state. An SPI case has been raised. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is desperate bullshit. Why would I even bother to do that? I've been quite happily removing the false claims about consensus and the mendacious allegations of trolling using my own username. And even if I did, then I have removed my own alleged sockpuppetry along with the unreliable source, Jappy, so it isn't on Wikipedia. If I wanted to fake a supporting view (and it does go on), I'd put it up and leave it there, not delete it. What would that achieve, if nobody sees it? On which topic, I could observe that the Dingleyan tone and detail of the above might suggest some connection between my accusers, but I'm sure that Dingley, 86.153.133.193, and another anonymous user whose number I can't remember are entirely independent and have no knowledge of each other whatsoever. That's certainly what I told my nephew, who will soon be celebrating his ninth birthday. Hengistmate (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No you deliberately socked as per your rtack record shows. You just came with an alternate angle nine minutes later as the edit summary clearly showed. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think am not convinced you've been socking here. However can you explain your last edit, that of blanking both sources entirely? You know that this would be a contentious edit, there is no reason at all to discard these two sources and you gave none. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please moderate your tone towards the civil; it is expected on this project and will serve you better (especially in this space) no matter what you think about the accusations being made against you. I have already said above that, based on the details presented so far, it looks as if there is plenty of blame to go around in this dispute, which has clearly grown personal and petty in nature amongst at least some parties on each side of the content dispute. But when a party responds with comments as laden with hostility as your last post, it becomes increasingly difficult to hold to the notion that the cause of acrimony is all that evenly disputed. Exuding vitriol and passive-aggressive counter-accusations will not improve your standing here. If the suggestions of socking is baseless, the SPI will reflect that, so you gain nothing by responding and suggesting that your "opponents" are the "real socks" unless you actually believe that and have evidence to provide to support the assertion. Bear in mind that the request to level a sanction against you has been opposed so far because this looks like a content dispute to most of us, not a behavioural situation. But blatant incivility could turn that impression around quite fast. Snow let's rap 01:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:TAGTEAM, WP:YESPOV and breach of WP:CONSENSUS at Political Correctness

    Currently, there is an RfC about the lead at Political Correctness, specifically about the term "primarily". The language RfC at talk is about changing it. All randomly browsing linguist editors voted for a third option to replace it with: "often".

    Yet a group of three WP:TAGTEAM hound this article: Aquillion (history), Fyddlestix (history) and Pincrete (history). Their modus operandi is revert warring together. No one can beat them in straight up control of this article. The only way to beat them is by a vote which is currently against them, yet even then they try their hardest to pretend the concensus is for them.

    The issue that ignited this ANI report is the fact that I now wanted to add a dubious tag to the "primarily" since the concensus is against it. I were reverted by Aquillion who claimed that "primarily" is long-standing (3 months now). The RfC is as old as the addition of the primarily, and random editors have tried removing pejorative altogether in the meantime. It's clearly a very controversial description. I did one revert of that removal of the dubious tag and explained that the concensus is against and that from the next revert I'd take the matter to ANI. I were blunt because I were more than certain I'd just get reverted again by one of the other meatpuppeteers, with them avoiding edit war but me being lead to one. I were then shortly reverted by Pincrete, stating that there is no reason for the tag since there is an RfC about it. If it is dubious then there is need for the dubious tag and it's to be talked about. Request for Comments is what RfC stands for, and there is "discuss" right next to the dubious marker. It fills the same niche but why would they override?

    The history of full of the three edit warring together and against people other than me. One reverts then another. It's such beautiful concert. At talk they have a history of appearing an hour apart from each other to vote, after having been away from the talk for 15-20 days with hundreds of posts and a large number of sections created in the meantime. The others don't need to argue when one handles it, but when you need to vote you of course need the whole gang. Someone even bothered to vote twice on a Kansas mobile phone IP at the talk. These three are the only ones opposing the change in addition to the mobile phone so I strongly suspect the mobile phone is one of them, especially since we haven't seen the mobile phone before the vote. Editing this article or even just talking at the talk is just a nightmare because of shady tactics like this.

    I had displayed bad faith in November (understandable in these circumstances) and an ANI report was made of me, with all of the three asking a block from editing only this article of me. The background to that ANI was that back then I noticed from the histories of the other articles related to Political Correctness that Aquillion had made similar POV edits. He had removed large, sourced chunks of text. I did reverts on multiple articles, and I were put up here for hounding and bad faith. None other but the three came forth with accusations. A Wikipedia employee then stepped in and warned me to stop hounding, which I weren't even familiar of before as a banned behavior. Of course I've never done anything similar after that. I also later swore to one of the three to never accuse of bad behavior when it's covert like I had but only when it's overt. But what is currently happening is very overt. In addition at one point I had actually made a meatpuppet report at SPI about the three, but the admin who closed it hadn't really read through well because he thought I had made the ANI report I just mentioned. I always bring the mistake up when one of the three (always the same one I argue with really) brings up that we already went through the investigation. I mentioned all of this because otherwise it would have been more than certainly guaranteed that they'll mention it and clutter it with untruths. None of what I wrote in this paragraph is an untruth. You'll see it because none of this paragraph's text will be denied. In addition my large numbers of edits to the talk will absolutely be brought up. Most of them edits are tiny typo edits since I usually just rush to post without looking for typos. In addition each is a reply to one of of the three...

    I request the dubious tag be added back for the duration of the RfC vote/discussion. There is strong opposition against the "primarily". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Brief reply by Pincrete The three editors Mr Magoo mentions (inc myself) are virtually the only regular editors on the page, therefore to speak of 'concensus' when all three oppose most of Mr Magoo's edits is nonsense. Since his arrival at this page, Mr Magoo has repeatedly made accusations of 'puppetry', lying etc. This has been the subject of a number of ANI's and an SPI, the closing editor on that SPI, Bbb23, said This is a baseless report brought by an editor who failed to obtain the results they wanted at ANI and then came here. The filer's spin on the evidence they've compiled is remarkably long but devoid of quality. Closing.. There is an open RfC on the disputed text (the second instigated by Mr Magoo on almost the same subject), the RfC has not yet been closed, but I defy anyone to conclude that there is anything remotely like a concensus to alter the disputed text.
    I will give a fuller account of any issues if anyone should wish, in the meantime I ask that someone close this ANI as peremptorily as did Bbb23.Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I wrote above, you always bring up that SPI about meatpuppetry. And like I just wrote, he hadn't really read through it because he thought I had listed the ANI mentioned there twice not to have been by me. And there is not as clear concensus in the RfC but there is blatant concensus that it is dubious whether it's primarily. In addition, there have been many editors who have tried to become regular editors of the page. Notably Valereee who opposed primarily but didn't want to fight. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, it seems like it was originally Valereee who tried to put "often" in the lead: 1. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Zezen was also scared off as he was tag team edit warred against, even after having my support. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest Boomerang - The accusations of POV pushing and tag teaming are baseless, and absurd. As Magoo has repeatedly been told, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're part if a shadowy conspiracy. But Magoo has continually refused to assume good faith, despite multiple requests/warnings. They have been bludgeoning the discussion at Political Correctness for months now, exhausting others' patience to the point where pretty much everyone but Pincrete has basically tuned out the "debate." Not only are Magoo accusations here totally baseless, they're just the latest stunt in a very long, very severe pattern of disruptive behavior. This needs addressing. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Comment I don't have much time so I'll be brief and come back later to expand. Since I participated in the RfC in November (it's been that long) I noticed there were issues between at least Magoo and Pincrete, and kept an eye on it as a disinterested editor. In fact, that RfC which is finishing its third month (for comparison, all of WP:RFA2015 took 4 months from the idea RfC to implementation), is largely unreadable because of the bickering between Magoo and Pincrete on pretty much every single comment. This is a much more longstanding problem than the dubious tag, and think editors trying to resolve this, should look more at the long term issues between the parties than this isolated incident. I've got to go, but should be back to give a few more specific thoughts, and feel free to ask me questions or to clarify in the mean time if need be. Wugapodes (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Looking at how the discussion has progressed, I don't think I can add anything that hasn't been brought up. Wugapodes (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing of the adjective was brought up in the former RfC. It was a compromise suggestion. "Often" as a compromise was suggested by Valereee last October, as in long ago. All I'm fighting for anymore is even a compromise. They won't budge the slightest. On another note: If you look at my history I have taken a great liking to doing sometimes exhaustive research on WP:AfD and have largely forgotten about this article. What does this translate to? The bickering is largely solved if the compromise is met. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Magoo, could you please supply the evidence that … a) A consensus exists to support your proposed edits (other than your own interpretation of an open RfC) … b) any evidence that anything improper unites the three named editors, or that they share anything in common apart from a disagreement with most of your edits, (and a distaste for the waste of time incurred by your bludgeoning methods and personal attacks, which this ANI is the latest example of).
    This is not the place for a content dispute, but the lead should be a summary of the article, where in the article is there any evidence of extensive non-derogatory use of the term 'PC' (based on 2ndary RS studies of use, not personal interpretation of primary sources or anecdotal evidence). We cannot conjure compromises out of our head which bear no relationship to the article, nor to studies of the use of the term. I proposed an alternative compromise based on 'came to prominence as a pejorative term', (since everyone recognises that the term CAN BE used ironically and in many other ways, even though these may not have been studied) but you dismissed the proposal. Your appeal for 'compromise' is completely at variance with your behaviour.Pincrete (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Where did I claim support for "proposed edits"? I claimed there is concensus for it being dubious, which is plain. Your argument in reverting was that both dubious tag and RfC can't co-exist. Where's the logic in that? And if you look at the article's history I'm not the only one you have edit warred or bludgeoned against. Before me you were shooting down plenty of people on talk. Didn't I list like 8 editors before who had disagreed with you?
    And I agree this is not the sort of place for this sort of discussion, so why continue it yourself? We should close this discussion in one of the green folders, but I think it would be rude if I did right now so maybe you can follow up with it. And the article has numerous examples of non-pejorative uses, merely describing it as the mentality of censoring based on politics. In fact there is a dearth of pejorative examples. We even have a big section for Right-wing political correctness, listing cold usages of the term to describe political censoring. And when did you suggest that prominence bit? Where I saw you talk about that you only talked about the history of the term, leading me to think you were talking about the history section. You have before written that the article lead should not be about the current day usage but about the historic, right? What can I even respond to that? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A-ban from political correctness - A skimming of the talk page makes me think (1) this is sour grapes on the part of Magoo vis-a-vis the RfC , (2) this feud has been ongoing for many months, and (3) Magoo is treating the article as a battleground. Their behavior has been beyond poor. Back in November Magoo found it "funny" that Aquillion and Fyddle soon after each other on the RfC and suggested they were "telepaths". This is thinly veiled sock/meat accusations. Additionally Magoo replied to nearly every "often" or "primarily" response to the RfC, suggesting to me that they are approaching it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not a method of forming consensus. They also accuse an IP editor of voting twice in the past RfC and being the same person who commented in the Plane Art section. The IPs are related, but not identical and to suggest they are the same person is accusing them of socking without evidence. Moreover, Magoo segregated those two RfC comments by (1) putting them under a header and (2) specifying their location. Between the comments and behavior on the RfC, the November SPI closed by Bbb23 as baseless ([35]), and this ANI make me think Magoo should banned from the article. Magoo's other edits seem constructive and as far as I can tell there's no specific topic that's being disrupted or targeted here, just this specific article. For the sake of the editor and the encyclopedia, removing this editor temporarily from this article seems like the best course of action to me. I think this would be more effective than an i-ban given the number of editors involved and what appears to be the lopsidedness the problem behaviors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IPs are from the same part of Kansas using the same phone company posting at nearly the same time of the day and in a rare fashion also always adding a period after a vote. The talk page has very few partakers. I don't know how much more clear you can get that it's the same person. AND since you mentioned something I had written about the two named editors I also happened to now remember that the first and the last began editing the article days apart in May 2015, cracking up hundreds of edits without bothering each other. And it's silly to only accuse me of battleground behavior when I'm been a victim of it as well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not the victim here, sorry. Your behavior is atrocious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: Could you expand on why you think an i-ban wouldn't be an effective option? I understand your point a bit, but would rather hear a bit more from you because I'm not entirely convinced. Wugapodes (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes: In my understanding, ibans are for when two editors simply cannot get along or they antagonize each other. One-way ibans are for when one editor hounds/harasses/antagonizes another. But that's not what's going on here. There are multiple editors "against" one. The issues seems to be more the article itself and Magoo's behavior on it than the editors' interactions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I exhibited bad behavior in November on this article but not since? It's been incredibly quiet since December. Just look at the number of messages on talk, not edits (I make lots of typo corrections). What exactly are you accusing me of? What message in particular? The only ones that been pointed were the ones towards the two IPs which I showed have such similarities that if you fed it through an odds calculator you'd pretty much end up with only the possibility that it's the same editor (you can do this. Same principle as at https://amiunique.org/. Just visit that site and you'll find that you're most likely unique due to so many little things attributing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead itself is a content dispute. The bigger issue here is Mr. Magoo's behavior on talk, which I feel has been fairly WP:TENDENTIOUS, focused on WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. The actual disputes are often relatively minor (sometimes focused on as little as one-word differences), and there have been some compromises; but he refuses to drop anything for good, ever, constantly bringing up old disagreements, and has made it clear on many occasions that he feels that he's there on the talk page to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by fighting what he views as (as he implies above) as a cabal of POV pushers. He mentions that few people participate on that talk page now, but I think that the reason for this has more to do with the way his intransigence on even the most minor points have reduced it to a sprawling, unreadable mess. While the page has been relatively quiet recently, some examples of recent edits he's made on talk that illustrate the problem include his failure to WP:AGF here and here, his tone here, and his hostile focus on irrelevant details eg. here. I also think it's worth pointing out that he's been involved in another dispute nearly identical to this one on Talk:Veganism (where he has since agreed not to edit); see the report here for discussing regarding it. I feel the fact that the exact same events played out there between him and unrelated editors shows that the problem is him and not us. I particularly invite people to compare his behavior as reported on Talk:Veganism with the behavior I described in an earlier report about this here (with many more detailed links). Based on all this, I'm suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG. I don't doubt that he believes he is fighting the good fight against a tag-team of POV pushers, but I think that the way he goes about conducting these disputes (and his unwillingness to WP:AGF about editors he strongly disagrees with on certain political topics) is at the root of the problems on the page. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd first of like to point there were people who disagreed with me in the first RfC, other than you three. I didn't bother any of these people. Why is that? Where is your suggested WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here? Why have you made numerous editors run away from the article in the past, having won arguments against them by bludgeoning and by sheer numbers? And when it comes to dropping the stick, I originally I disagreed much more strongly in this matter. Generally nor often were my choice originally. They are the compromise. You have pretty much never ever dropped the WP:STICK when against anyone. And when it comes to the other article, it was about WP:EDITWARring over a mention of animal products. How is this in any way related to this matter? You just went digging for dirt to sling, didn't you? In addition, I'm still allowed to partake at the talk there since it was about edit warring (per discussions with hander). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs solidify my suggestion for a-ban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did use that term that after I had learned it at the ANI about me you had made in your own WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality but only vaguely and not like now as a report and the reason was that they were actually plainly talking about tactics on user talk. You don't think that's team-like behavior? And is that your only relation? Wait, after that you point out a bit where they say I made a large number of edits there as well, pointing out the Fyd quotation where he says I made the hundreds of edits to the current article's talk. Is the matter at hand the number of typo corrections I make? Is it against Wikipedia's rules to respond to every reply you get? Notice how they don't point out anything else. The subject matter was the edit war that had taked place and only because I had accidentally partaken it at the end. If you notice the last edits weren't even about the warred bit but of citation templates and that bit was just got taken on a ride. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE!

    I'd just like to point out that this notice is not about seeking any punishments for some vague tag-teamism — I know blocks aren't handed out for anything vague — but just the return of the dubious tag. I listed the tag-teamism because I may easily go overboard in my arguments for something more petty, according to some. This request got lost in the mess as I hadn't thickened it or anything. If you were gracious you'd let this bit be at the bottom so it can be seen what the request was and was not. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You committed 90% of your text to complaining about users and titled the section about them. This was not about the dubious tag. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because otherwise it looks like multiple editors removed the dubious and superficially it looks like concensus. I had to prove why it's not. I do get carried away. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject of this ANI aside, after being pinged, I can only confirm that after my sourced edit with the historical usage of the word which was trimmed down 90%, I do not touch this entry with a barge pole nor follow its Talk page. Zezen (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently they now punish for talking to two people at once at a talk page? I looked at the Talk and you've only been replying to people, nothing else. And they wonder why editors are leaving — these rules are bizarre! To top it all of you were right there because most people have voted NO in the vote. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed, the rules seem to have changed very much recently. Incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, and even the case of a lone tendentious editor continuing to push his case when everyone else disagrees have always been frowned upon but now we seenm to have a rule against supporting the majority position against a handful of editors now seems to be forbidden. It is all very worrying. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This notice is just about the return of the Dubious tag, not about any actions for the vague teaming. — — I'm moving this at the bottom here again because people posted in this subsection (I shouldn't have made it a subsection). Please post above this. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Magoo, I am unclear from your postings whether you STILL believe that Aqu Fydd and I are part of some sock/meat/tag arrangement. You seem to be implying that it really isn't important to you any longer and only a tag matters. If that is the case, … a) It is important TO ME, I take great offence at having this accusation thrown around like confetti, literally 100s of times now, towards me and others, despite you having been asked, told and warned many times to either present the evidence or drop it, to 'put up or shut up'. … …b)Are you really saying now that this whole ANI was started by you in order to restore a tag? Without even asking anyone why it was removed? Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked people to post above the bit... And vague tag-teamism will obviously lead to nothing as we've already been through. And the whole concept of bad faith is incredibly vague as well because when someone commits blatant vandalism and he is listed here then does the lister not show bad faith? It boggles the mind how the rule is supposed to be applied. And I brought it up this time because the reverts happen in plain team formation. I'd at least expect a discussion first but you always revert before even discussing anymore. You're just stuck to the formation now. The article is dead in the water pretty much. Remember that extra section I wanted to add? The two appeared at the talk who even seemed to support it. But they don't want to argue. You and me are the only ones who have the energy to argue but you've got the backing of a team to vote and revert. The two do pretty much nothing else anymore at the article. How you do imagine it simply feels from my perspective? I try add a well-sourced Baa Baa Sheep of my own but it gets removed instantly. No one wants to edit this article or talk at the talk. I create an RfC not even believing I'll get much support but then I do from all who appear. Yet even then you act like it's not concensus. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I forgot to mention that yes it was supposed to be. It was meant to be one of those short ones but then it grew and grew as a I built my case for the tag. At some point it had grown so big that I couldn't really map it out in my head anymore and that's why it looks a bit messy and broken and it doesn't list the names of the supporters to begin with or something. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Mr. Magoo's answers. The rules are very clear, no personal attacks. The sock/meat/tag accusations will 'obviously lead to nothing' because they are void of any evidence or even much logic, ditto the accusations against the IPs. As far as I can see 'concensus' in your posts (which editors are supposed to have edited against), refers to your own interpretation of the opinion on an unclosed (and very flawed) RfC. Unless the opinions expressed in that RfC were universally, policy-based, evidence based, support, such a personal interpretation by an involved party could not possibly be described as 'concensus'. Pincrete (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have mostly ceased from personal accusations towards you at the talk ever after the failed SPI (other than when the discussion happened about the removed section which you might remember from me claiming twice that you lied about the time it had been part of the stable version), but I apologize for it being a different matter here at ANI. I explained my reasoning for bad faith with the lister of vandalism example. The lister is automatically guilty himself, is he not? The personal accusations I've made at the talk and which have been presented were towards the IP. I explained how the likelihood of the IPs being the same is close to certain. My intention here was not to re-ignite the team conversation. I have to reiterate that I'm discussing in a foreign language and it takes a considerable amount of brain power just to not mess the grammar up. I'm grateful for you not voting against me and I promise not to bring up the teaming again. You know I hold my promises to the letter. I hope this problem can be solved with my promise. Again, my intention was to focus on the removal of the Dubious tag which I thought I'd be able to win back. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Magoo, your promise of good behaviour might be more convincing to me, if similar ones had not been made before: I've learned my lessons about wild accusations … in the future I will refrain from accusations and at worst only accuse of bad behavior when it's overt and not covert.. A promise made on 17th November on a prev ANI, followed on 30th November by the 'baseless' SPI referred to previously and umpteen talk page accusations, including within the RfC plus others saying I lied (which I fairly plainly did not). You admit to starting an ANI in order to get a tag restored (without asking why it was removed, which was for a good reason IMO). Other editors on the page find you impossible to work with and do not consider you an asset. Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but we've already talked about this before. I keep my promises to the letter. I promised when it's overt and not covert and we weren't talking about the team accusation that followed after but the earlier kind. This time it's absolute. And I didn't need to ask why the tag was removed because it was already explained in the edit summaries. And the only other editors other than you who think so are A and F. Where as how many have now agreed with my point of changing the adjective? 6? And look what was written below. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    inappropriate NAC

    Please note that I have reverted this wholly inappropriate nac, by a random ip who has made no other edits. A sanction has been proposed and is gaining some support, I don't think the nac was appropriate and frankly find it suspicious. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Though I apologize if this isn't the right noticeboard. I'm not that familiar with "listing rules". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the NAC was incorrect. In my opinion, an incorrect NAC of an RFC is any NAC when the RFC is properly formed and has been running for less than 30 days. The suggestion to take the content dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard would have been a reasonable one if there weren't already an RFC. DRN doesn't accept a dispute that is being resolved elsewhere, such as RFC, and RFC trumps DRN. The IP should be warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Apology for the team accusation

    I apologize for the team accusation, and I promise not to bring it up again. My intention here was not to bring it up. I brought it up solely as ammunition for my claim of the Dubious tag returnal, but people interpreted this notice to have been about it rather than the Dubious tag. Since it was brought up so casually many people's feelings were hurt, which I apologize for. In the past I have shown that I keep my promises to the letter. This promise is fairly absolute, without leaving doubt. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a history of sometimes making large posts that cover every little aspect over focusing only on the basics, which is why the accusation grew to a big paragraph instead of just a quick quip. I had originally intended it to be a background sidenote, ammunition as I mentioned. But again, I apologize for bringing it up. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comment: As someone who tried to find a compromise and left because it just got too tedious, I have to say there is unfortunate behavior on both sides of this argument. In what should be among reasonable people an easy compromise on content (the use of the word 'often' instead of 'primarily' in a point that is CLEARLY disputed) the editors in agreement with one another have all simply refused to compromise to the point that they have indeed driven off other well-intentioned editors. The complaining editor here loses their cool regularly. And everyone involved seems to be unable to communicate briefly. valereee (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Compromise?

    A number of comments above criticise the article editors for 'quibbling' over one word, somewhat unfairly IMO. This is not the place to discuss content matters, so I have started a section on talk to which editors are invited to contribute. I have started this section partly to clarify the problem, but primarily hoping to find some MEANINGFUL way out of the impasse. Pincrete (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, Pincrete, it's just too tedious. You've stated you are categorically opposed to ANY compromise on this single word, and you've made such ridiculously verbose arguments that literally no one can follow them without several days' work. You've won that particular war of attrition with me and multiple others, and frankly if I were to advise Mr. Magoo and McBarker it would be to say 'this isn't worth it. Just let these editors own the article and push their point of view on this.' I may not admire Magoo's general demeanor at times, but I have to credit the stick-to-it-iveness.  :) valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am opposed to any compromise conjured from people's heads and not based on the content of the article, nor on sources. What is unacceptable about that position? Especially as there are ways around the problem. If I haven't expressed myself clearly or concisely, why not ask for clarification ?Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pincrete, truly -- and I really don't mean to seem disagreeable here, but I can't find another way to say it -- you don't seem capable of conciseness. I'm not singling you out, the same is true for Mr. Magoo and McBarker. I just simply don't have the energy to wade through your arguments about this. I cede the field. You can have Political correctness, as far as I'm concerned, and when readers click onto it and read the lead and say to themselves. "Wait, that's not right, I still hear people using it sincerely all the time," you can explain to them that even though PC is still used on a fairly regular basis nonpejoratively in various places, the fact that no one reports on the nonpejorative use means it must not be a current common usage of the word. You're asking the editors who disagree with you to prove a negative. No one comments on a word being used in its original meaning. They comment when it ISN'T. That doesn't mean words aren't used in their original meanings, it simply means no one sees fit to write about it when it happens. I feel you're using a very narrow reading of wikipedia policy to push your point of view. valereee (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Valeree, I will reply on your talk. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving towards a closure

    Can others help in clarifying what is being requested here so we can resolve this? From where I stand, Mr. Magoo and McBarker seems to only want the return of the {{dubious}} tag and claims to have dropped the tag team and other complaints. The dubious tag is in my opinion a content dispute, and one that seems to be moving toward resolution (see linked discussion above). Pincrete seems to take issue with the fact that the tag team and meatpuppet allegations were brought up in the first place (and it seems it's not the first time they've been made). WP:Boomerang was brought up, with EvergreenFir and JzG both suggesting A-bans for Magoo. Since it seems the content dispute is being resolved (and should be resolved) elsewhere, should we discuss ways of resolving the underlying dispute or just close it and move on? If anyone thinks my characterization is wrong, misleading, or leaving out something important, let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally think that an A-ban on Magoo is punishing the wrong person for the wrong thing. Magoo needs to learn how to disagree without becoming disagreeable, but their basic argument about these editors' unwillingness to compromise over content is correct, IMO. valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    valereee, please provide evidence of myself, Aqu or Fydd excluding content unreasonably (not in this section though). This is a 'hot button' topic which is prone to outright vandalism, PoV pushing, OR, 'essay writing' etc. etc. etc.. There is a need to enforce WP guidelines consistently and fairly rigidly, though it should be done courteously, as far as possible. A number of editors above have accused us of excluding content, none has so far offered any proof that this has been done either outside core guidelines or against concencus or uncivilly.Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pincrete, I have no doubt that your intention is to follow WP guidelines, and that your goal is to produce a great article, but what you're doing is taking the fact that the pejorative use is what's primarily reported on and insisting this is also evidence that it's the primary way the word is being used. Which is why so many new-to-the-article editors keep coming in and going, "Wait, what? That's not correct." valereee (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to correct here, but primarily is not sourced whatsoever. Zero sources exist for it. I just added two sources at talk which specifically define the term as "often derogatory". I had not found these before this point because of the word derogatory instead of pejorative. We are currently standing at a situation of "sourced by two sources" versus "completely unsourced". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Magoo and McBarker, answering on your talk page. valereee (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Wugapodes Thankyou for naming me. To say that 'it is not the first time' that tag/sock/meat allegations have been made is a sizable understatement, they have been thrown around everywhere for months, as have other PAs and general 'battleground' behaviour. The SPI referred to above was brought at a point that an RfC was not going well for Mr. Magoo. We have an admission here that this ANI was instigated by Mr. Magoo, solely to restore a tag (without any attempt to resolve the matter). I have tried to minimise my involvement on this ANI, preferring that others judge whether this is acceptable behaviour by Mr. Magoo. However, since you have asked, the real subject of this ANI became Mr. Magoo's behaviour and the boomerang almost immediately and I would prefer that it run its course, with closure by an uninvolved party. Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry but no, not in 2016, let alone near the end of 2015. You're thinking about earlier times (time passes by fast). I think you'd be able to point only two diffs from this time period where it's only hinted. And no other PAs outside of that other than towards the obviously same IP who voted twice. The SPI was brought up because of the behavior at the RfC. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You above admit to calling me a liar, several times recently. This ANI itself is a huge, wholly unjustified, PA, brought about (by your own admission) solely to bludgeon a trivial change on the article, and which you backed down on only when the boomerang was invoked. I prefer to let the community decide whether that is acceptable behaviour and an admin to decide appropriate outcome. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you stated that something that had been part of the stable version for years had in your words been stable only for months. I didn't call you a liar. I called it a lie. And I still do request the Dubious tag... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say for years, I said while I had been editing the page, it was said very clearly several times. You repeated 'liar' several times, but have only now today bothered to let me know what the supposed 'lie' was. The pointless accusations against several IPs are as offensive to me as one's against myself. When someone is constantly snarling and shouting abuse in a room, it is no less offensive because one is not the target. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I never once wrote the word "liar". I of course also informed you why it was untrue at the time multiple times. It hurts my feelings when you describe things I never did. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Full story here: from my reply to Wtmitchell, it includes several overt 'tag team' accusations, one of 'you outright and knowingly lied', which I had not. Later when I pointed out to Mr. Magoo that either he was wrong, or I had no idea what he was talking about 'You did obviously lie about Civitas', then I dropped the matter. Yes, all this was late December 2015.
    What most concerns me is how easily Mr. Magoo forgives his own abominable behaviour (that was in 2015, so it doesn't count, I only promised to not make accusations about covert puppetry, this was clearly overt (though neither the SPI nor anybody else thinks that there are even grounds for suspicion), I never once wrote the word liar (just an exact paraphrase, twice, which he has never acknowledged or apologised for), I only wanted the tag restored, so of course I started an ANI accusing three editors of a host of crimes for which there was zero evidence, etc. etc. etc.). Mr. Magoo appears to have no sense of how offensive this behaviour is and how counter productive, and thinks we should all 'kiss and make up' simply because he has dropped the ANI. I'm sorry, but I am not persuaded of any sincere intention to change behaviour.Pincrete (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but is this it? One mention from last year? Do you have even a single diff from this year? I have been well and you should acknowledge that. And do you now agree that you were wrong to have accused me to have called you a "liar" specifically, as I had not used that word? I'm sorry, but you never apologize yourself. And this was sometime after the SPI with the matter still raw. Mind you, you yourself wrote: "I really don't give a s*** about your pathetic defence" (censored the swear word). I even recommended you to calm down after that. And the only reason I brought up the SPI there was because it had been exactly about these original removals from the article way back. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And sorry but I also found it hurtful that after we now had civilly argued on the talk for an hour and then instead of responding to my latest civil argument you came here to badmouth me of something that happened last year. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    'Last year' was 7 weeks ago, this ANI (a gigantic PA instigated because you couldn't bludgeon a tag, was started 7 days ago. I did - and do - look upon your defence of repeating tag/meat/sock accusations and quibbling over 'you outright lied/you're a liar' as pathetic.
    I distinguish between the talk page and here, because that's what we always try to do. Talk page is for civil argument about pertinent issues, in which we try to work toward MEANINGFUL compromise. WP:AGF isn't there because we are all nice, and it isn't optional. Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but no, no it clearly wasn't, unless you for some reason count the entire section. And you call adding a Dubious tag bad behavior? What? Again, 7 people have voted for "often". After it kept getting removed I did what any rational editor would do and noted the removals here. I got carried away with the background and I've apologized for that. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed remedy

    I previously stated that I think there were underlying issues beyond the content dispute, and this discussion has only reinforced that belief. The underlying problems between editors, regardless of how the content dispute turns out, should be addressed to minimize disruption. As such, I propose the following:

    1. Article Ban for Mr. Magoo and McBarker from Political correctness for a period of 3 months, which includes the talk page.
    2. Two way Interaction Ban for Magoo and Pincrete for a period of 6 months.

    If the consensus talked about exists at Talk:Political correctness, Magoo's absence from the page won't be a problem, and if it doesn't exist then the A-ban should prevent disruption and forum shopping. The I-ban allows for the two editors to still edit the page (once the A-ban is expired) and participate in discussions but will hopefully limit the disruption caused by personal attacks and accusations. Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • In addition this ANI already lead to me promising not to accuse the three ever again - an absolute statement. This ANI already lead to a result. This meets their requests. It's either this "aban" or your aban and I believe this would satisfy them a lot more. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Magoo, this ANI is evidence of bad behaviour and unfounded accusations made by you in 2016. When the boomerang was invoked, you stopped throwing dirt. You instigated the ANI immediately after this edit, and this edit, both of which boil down to 'if I don't get what I want, watch out'. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you point diffs? And sorry but there are 7 people who voted for "often" to be placed there. That's not enough for a Dubious tag for you? It kept getting removed so I did what any sane editor would do and listed the removal at ANI. I got carried away with the background but I apologized for that. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried cotting this conversation but apparently that's not okay, so let the masses of text cover the landscape... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Not the right way forwards. Conflicts in WP should be resolved by civil discussion. If this does not work there are the options of mediation and the RfC. Both are far from perfect but they are all we have. I suggest that you all concentrate on getting the widest possible participation and finding a good independent experienced admin to close the RfC.
    • Regarding the interaction between two editors, why not set up a sub page for that discussion. It has been done before. Both sides must agree to use it in good faith though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose one-sided action, probably any action other than closing RfC properly and moving on. I think an A-ban is excessive, and one should not be imposed in the middle of a content dispute in a lopsided manner, absent serious disruption and bad faith, since it simply ends the dispute in automatic favor of whoever was being slightly more polite, without any regard for the merits of the relative positions being advanced. The accuracy of the content matters more than petting one party for being marginally mor



    civil, and spanking the other. A short-term, mutual I-ban wouldn't hurt, I guess. I share concerns that the regulars at the page are ignoring the rationales presented by RfC respondents, and insisting on having WP:THERIGHTVERSION. Repeated removal of a dispute tag, when the dispute [well beyond its actual importance] dominates the talk page, is inappropriate. What is there to hide? Making poorly evidenced WP:TAGTEAM accusations at ANI isn't helpful either, though. Three people not agreeing with you don't automatically equate to a conspiracy. I'm skeptical this rises to WP:BOOMERANG level. That would be purely punitive at this stage, since Magoo has clearly gotten the point already. Just let the RfC close properly, and that would be facilitated by both sides giving it a rest until then. And whoever is socking from multiple IPs from the same location back-to-back (or meatpupetteering, getting their co-workers to phone in "votes" on their lunch break, whatever the case may be) needs to knock it off or they're going to get blocked, if anyone bothers to make a WP:SSI out of it (that, too, would be overkill at this point; it was a dumb ploy, no one's buying it, and that lesson has probably also been learned).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    SMcCandlish ☺, given the subject matter, could I ask you to strike through the 'whoever is socking', I can't speak for Aqu or Fydd, or anyone else, but I live the other side of the globe from Kansas. Also the article and talk are fairly frequently visited by strange 'wiki-savvy IPs', who annoy, but don't affect outcomes, so there may well be an explanation which doesn't involve any editor. Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mention anyone in particular. When two IPs show up from right near each other in meatspace to make essentially identical comments back-to-back on an obscure, near-pointless discussion, it is not a coincidence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as involved party, content dispute aside, neither on talk nor at this ANI has Mr. Magoo shown any serious awareness of how time-wasting, exhausting and counter-productive to his own position his behaviour and tactics are. The content dispute is only solvable within an atmosphere less poisoned by cyclic PA's. Either we mean 'no PA's' or we don't, enough is enough. Pincrete (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as overkill. But advice to Mr. Magoo and McBarker: give up on this article voluntarily. Let someone else take it over from here. I suspect the problem will be resolved more quickly without your input than with it, as there's too much bad blood between you and the other editors, and I believe it is stiffening their resistance to compromise. valereee (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The proposal seems like excessive punishment. However, I agree with valereee that Mr. Magoo and McBarker should think about stepping back for a while. Time away from a project often brings new perspective. Couldn't hurt.Kerdooskis (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose , unless other editors be this article- or topic- banned too. Zezen (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but where are the diffs showing that any of the other involved editors have done anything that is remotely sanctionable or against policy? Topic bans aren't applied out of a sense of fairness or out of a desire to be even-handed, they're applied for disruptive conduct. Where is the evidence of anyone other than Magoo editing disruptively? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as an involved editor. I understand why some of you are arguing that Mr. Magoo should be given a break - but that's basically where we left this last time it was brought to ANI. Magoo has been warned (and promised to stop) refusing to AGF before, yet here we are again. I think he's out of chances at this point.
    I also think this is a pretty clear case of WP:BLUDGEON - Magoo has made about 1300 edits to this single article's talk page, starting numerous different talk page discussions about the same basic subject, and spamming them with lengthy walls-of-text. And I'm not just saying that because I hold a different opinion about the article - when Magoo was taken to 3RR in early February, EdJohnston noted that Magoo's editing tends to follow "a pattern of stubbornness and relentless argumentation" and that "he defends his point of view with great tenacity." At the last ANI report in November, Rhododendrites also noted that "Magoo's first edit to Talk:Political correctness was on 1 October 2015 and since that point he has completely and utterly dominated the page, making almost a THOUSAND edits in a month and a half," suggesting that "such intensity, with the evidence of POV-pushing and battleground behavior" was troubling. This is a long-term, stubborn problem. It's not going to fix itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That was 90% about the hounding, as at the time I didn't know such a rule existed against reverting an editor across multiple articles. I were a very new editor back then, used to teenager-level forum arguments. I was warned for the hounding and have done nothing even close since. This has been a growing-up experience. In addition the vague end result left open a big loophole. There's no loophole this time. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This was my perception on the matter. The fact that someone behaved inappropriately at one time does not mean that every concern ever raised about them henceforth is legitimate, entirely legitimate even if partially correct, or requires punitive action.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) And the paragraph about the numbers of edits: they're mostly WP:TYPO corrections. If you look at my past edits, my edit count is nearly tripled from just all the typo corrections. Edit count means nothing. Pincrete himself has 600 edits to the talk page, in total messages most likely the same amount as me. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the interaction ban. These two editors dislike each other to the point where they will probably try to provoke violations of the interaction ban. I am not expressing an opinion on a topic ban, but I might consider a two-way topic ban as better than an IBAN, which are often gamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't dislike Mr. Magoo, I despise the methods he uses to get what he wants and to make his presence felt. I would not oppose any proposed two-way topic ban. Doing good to the article is meant to take precedence over being fair to the individual, therefore I'd rather see an ANI which actually did something than one which simply 'fudged the issue', which several previous ones have done. Pincrete (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pincrete, I think that's a very admirable outlook, putting the good of the article before your own ability to influence its shape, and especially being willing to suffer a community sanction to effectuate that outcome if that would be the best outcome for the article. But surely if you are willing to make that sacrifice, you can see your way towards a compromise on the issue of a single word, especially if it means preserving two active editors for the article who can do much to improve it beyond that one sentence. Do you really think that Mr. Magoo's influence on the talk page is so disruptive that this is the best solution amongst those proposed? Do you really want to endorse this approach without giving DRN or some similar process a go? Are you really willing to pull back entirely from the article, even if it means someone else might pick up Mr. Magoo's outlook on the content and push forward on it? I'm trying to understand your motivations here so we can tell if this is really the best possible solution of limited options, which would be difficult (thought not impossible) for me to accept. Snow let's rap 05:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow, I proposed compromises on both the RfC's relating to this piece of trivia. I make it clear in my answer to the present RfC that I felt I was being unfairly forced to make a choice. I admit to having reacted negatively to a constant barrage of bludgeon (acres of irrelevant sources, which I suspect no voter actually read) and that may have influenced my negative vote, hardened my position. This ANI is not about one word, for which sourceable, non-contentious by-passes are available that should satisfy everyone. It is about user-behaviour over an extended period, Mr. Magoo made it about that. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • STRONG Oppose to IBAN I don't know how many years we have to deal with the fallout of unworkable IBANs before we rework the wording to WP:IBAN and fundamentally alter our approach on the matter, but here's the long and short of it for those who don't spend a lot of time at ANI or in dispute resolution broadly: IBANs do not (as in never) work in situations where the parties must share a close editorial environment, such as when they work on an article with few other editors to offer a buffer between them or to flesh out the consensus process. Point in fact, IBANs almost never work in general, for a variety of reasons, but when they are imposed for editors who both refuse to disengage from a given topic matter, the IBAN itself becomes a gravity well of the magnitude of a blackhole, sucking in countless volunteer hours as the combatants spar from a distance and lodge unceasing allegations at ANI or elsewhere about one or the other violating the ban. It's really simple: if these parties were incapable of working together collaboratively when they could directly communicate, why would they be any more efficient after they can only passive-aggressively circumvent one-another's contributions? If you want to understand where this issue will end up after an IBAN, try looking at the AN/ANI record for the Catflap08/Hijiri88 dispute, a matter that ultimately (and recently) had to be handled by ArbCom because our approach to it here was so shortsighted. No, no, no, a thousand times no to this proposed IBAN. Snow let's rap 04:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TBAN. As to the TBAN for Mr. Magoo, I just don't see it being justified. Don't get me wrong, I think Magoo probably has acted at least a little tendentiously, but not any more so than his "opposition" on that talk page. And maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like he did indeed have a consensus to at least budge the wording of that lead statement a little in terms of the absoluteness of the adjective in question. Which is not to say that this whole dispute isn't petty in the extreme; any benefit to the article gained from making that statement slightly more precise has been massively outweighed at this point by the number of volunteer hours consumed debating the point on that talk page (and the fallout here). And Mr. Magoo probably deserves a boomerang trouting at the least for filing this discussion following previous efforts at ANI and SPI. And indeed, he should be made aware that it's likely going to be more than a trouting next time.
    But all of that said, it looks as if both sides of this dispute are showing some embarrassment above about how they have let this issue spiral out of control. I suggest we close this discussion, advise the parties to pursue WP:DRN or another route of mediation and make it clear that the ban hammer is coming down hard on someone if they can't make this work. (That goes equally for Pincrete as for Mr. Magoo, as the former is showing intractability equally as odious as the latter's verbosity). For what it's worth, a few years ago I probably would have agreed with Pincrete whole-heartedly, but my observation is that many academics now use the term in a more neutral fashion; how that shifts the balance of "often" vs. "primarily" is open for debate, especially with weak secondary sourcing, but I think there must be an unexplored middleground here. Seriously guys, there's a lot of adjectives on this spectrum; get out a thesaurus and see what you can't agree on. Both sides of this dispute seem populated by editors smart enough to know how embarrassing it would be to get a community sanction over this nonsense. Snow let's rap 04:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    New/Revised Proposal

    Reading through the comments on the previous proposal, I've been convinced the previous proposal may not have been effective and may have been overkill. It seems, from the opposes that most people think a stern warning is sufficient, though SMcCandlish at least hinted at the option of a proper closing of the RfC. So what are people's thoughts on the following:

    1. The RfC be closed (either by an admin or willing, experienced editor. Commentors should probably indicated a preferenance)
    2. All parties get a stern warning and are advised to work more collaboratively.

    I'm not sure if it's typical for the first one to be proposed, or who we'd get to do it if there's support (any volunteers?) but I think it's an interesting option that could cool down the dispute, considering the RfC has been running for 3 months and seems to be the flashpoint for a lot of the issues raised. Wugapodes (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. I agree that closing the RfC should be a priority, since all the involved parties have clearly had opportunity to say their peace and a formal close should help to resolve this matter. The parties here do not seem altogether unreasonable and certainly don't seem to be bad-faith actors in general; it seems they've just become entrenched or carried away in turns. I hope the "losing" party or parties will therefore abide by the closure finding, in the best interests of the article. Further, (and I wouldn't suggest this in the vast majority of ANI discussions, as it wouldn't be feasible in most) I also recommend the involved parties openly recognize the good-faith motivations of the other side. I think you're all going to see this as a series of hyper-reactive decisions when you get some distance and perspective from the argument, so why not try to bury the hatchet now and try to develop a better working relationship? This article is important and could benefit from its principle editors viewing eachother in a more positive light. Snow let's rap 06:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No evidence has been offered anywhere in this ANI of any bad behaviour by either Aquillion or Fyddlestyx, not even minor incivility. I don't ask anyone to prove that I may have 'taken the bait' sometimes myself, so should the ANI select this option, I'm not going to argue about myself, but the 'stern warning' should have the courage to name people and specify their 'faults'. If we have to revisit anyone's user behaviour in 6 weeks time, it would be useful to have a record of what was concluded here. Closure of the RfC is problematic, the RfC was a near repeat of a previous one, it was instigated without discussion on talk, it was bedevilled in its early days by a discreditted SPI and other considerations. I think closure, should be by a very competent person and that these factors should be noted, regardless of its outcome. Don't object to either option though re. who to close. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a proper, choosing closure to the matter. What has proven most problematic is the constant back-and-forth bickering, over a petty matter. This would solve nigh everything. The matter is even easy to solve as new, colossus-like sources have been brought forth. There also exists a broad concensus by votes. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose I agree with Pincrete that whatever warnings are given need to be specific, and frankly I doubt anyone wants to do that research; I sure don't. :D Nothing I've seen on any of these editors' parts makes me believe they're doing anything worse than losing their tempers, and quite frankly I've come close myself. I'm not sure the RfC should be closed yet, as there are currently new discussions of alternate solutions to the issue. Sorry to not give support to either of your solutions; this ill-considered ANI probably just needs to go away. valereee (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure no offence was intended, but remind that no evidence of even minor wrongdoing has been offered re: Aqui and Fydd. Their only 'crime' is that they take a different position in an RfC, which they base on their knowledge of the sources, also they and I think that the RfC should not be implemented until properly closed. An offer by S Marshall to close that RfC was made on 12th Feb, Mr Magoo delayed matters for over a week deciding whether he objected to him closing, probably it would otherwise now be closed. Me lose my cool? Irony? Sarcasm? Probably. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pincrete, thank you for assuming no offense was intended. I was trying too hard not to name names (and thereby call out people for behavior I don't clearly remember and wasn't interested in researching) that I inadvertently possibly seemed to be including unspecified minor bad behavior on the parts of any number of people. I agree with you that I have no recall of even minor wrongdoing on the parts of either Aqui or Fydd, whom I won't ping here as you haven't been. My apologies to both. valereee (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except for edit warring for which a warning was issued... And Marshall courteously asked if anyone has anything to say about him closing and I pointed out some mistakenly deduced summarizations he had made before about stances... And for some days now he's simply been on a long break. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Magoo, you had a perfect right to seek clarification or to object to the offer from SMarshall to close the RfrC. But it isn't very rational to be the cause of a delay on closure and at the same time either get frustrated about the delay (which everyone is), or, (worse in my opinion), to pre-judge what that closure will be. Either we all wait for closure or we don't.Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with clarification: I don't think any warning needs to be "stern", though it does need to be specific. This minor spat has not actually been very disruptive, just tedious. Pincrete is correct on both points; the close should be careful, and ANI should not issue gameable warnings to people who don't deserve them. The closure is long overdue. Valereee is correct in noting continued discussion, but I'm skeptical that it's productive, or as productive as it should be. It would make sense to close the RfC so that discussion can be productive instead of trying to work at RfC-related angles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support. I support subject to the closer taking note of the 'user-targetted' suggestions about warnings which I make in my comment above (which are broadly endorsed by Valereee and SMcCandlish). Let's close this and get on with something useful.Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wugapodes, I'm not sure of procedure and votes here aren't many, but would it be appropriate to ask for a close based on 1) no substantial opposition to your proposal here 2) warnings be issued as the person closing sees fit (a slightly modified version of your 2nd point, endorsed by 3 of the 5 voters, inc myself.) Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pincrete: I'm sure an admin or experienced editor will close it at an appropriate time. I can imagine an open ANI isn't a fun thing to have hanging over your head, but things move slowly sometimes and it's only been a few days. I trust that the admins and experienced editors here will close it when it needs to be closed. Wugapodes (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes:, thanks for reply, no I wasn't nervous for myself, just unsure as to whether anything needed to be done.Pincrete (talk)13:19, 26 February 2016

    Possible veiled threat by IP editor on my user talk page

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

    A few hours ago, I received a series of weird messages on my user talk page (and I replied to them as well). Here's the diff of the full exchange [36]. The whole thing reads like some kind of a veiled threat (disguised as a caring voice) to discourage me from editing any articles about politicians connected to the ruling party in Singapore. (For context, ISD refers to Internal Security Department (Singapore) which can detain people without a trial). Looking back, I realize that at the time when I received the messages, I was coincidentally also involved in a (heated) discussion at Talk:Calvin Cheng (an article about a Singaporean politician).

    I am not sure how to react to this since I am a relatively new editor (3 months). I would have loved to forget the whole incident, but after reading WP:NPA, I am erring on the side of caution and reporting it. While the threat might just have been frivolous, it still worries me since it involves my offline life. I do not want to open myself (or my family) up for harassment by the government. I'm not sure of what steps to take further and would be glad to receive some advice. In addition, is there any way to check if this IP is a sockpuppet being used to harass me?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Those messages are beyond weird. I don't know if this follows WP:NPA, WP:NLT or WP:COI. I have replied to the IP if that's okay with you. Also, you forgot to notify the IP about the ANI thread. I have done so for you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Callmemirela: Thank you for your help and support. Apologies for not notifying the IP involved. Yup, it is perfectly fine to reply on my talk page. The reason I did not reply any more to the IP was because I was feeling a bit distressed at that moment.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the intent is for you to be distressed. Therefore, it appears as an attempt to create a WP:CHILLING EFFECT applied in the form of a threat on your personal safety. That is unacceptable. I advise that you be careful in editing, but do not stop editing unless there is substantial reasoning as to why not, so long as it does not exist in the form of a threat. If you feel a strong threat to your own personal safety, do not hesitate to contact emergency@wikimedia.org -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're wise to report it, and should always exercise caution editing biographies. From looking at the histories, I'd be tempted to wonder if it might be 203.125.172.2 (talk · contribs) and 59.189.180.12 (talk · contribs) hopping onto their mobile phone. More than tempted actually.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Voidwalker: Thank you. This seems good for the moment. In case any further harassment attempts are made, I will let you know.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Voidwalker:@Callmemirela:@Zzuuzz: Update: I thought to mention these incidents since I am not sure if these constitute WP:NPA. In addition, I have a strong feeling that there seems to be a certain amount of collaboration among the IPs/users involved.
    • Personal attacks [37],[38]
    • Exchanges on my talk page: [39],[40] (One of the accounts seems newly created and looks like it has been going through my edit history and reverting my changes in other articles [41],[42])
    • Reply by IP but the reply seems as if it is written by an existing user who logged out and is doing IP editing. See reply by IP [43] and previous replies by a logged in user [44],[45]
    Is there any way to find if this is being done individually or as a group?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, but if it looks like a duck .... I would think you could benefit from a little discreet help from a CheckUser, or alternatively put together a list of what's going on and who's saying what, as you're probably in a better position to do that. There's a lot to read there. On the plus side, it's looking increasingly like basic sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. You should assume these IPs and any new accounts are one and the same, imo. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree too except for the fact that CheckUsers generally don't (can't) link IPs to accounts. Not saying an WP:SPI shouldn't be filed anyway with enough evidence, just cautioning against expecting miracles. I personally just hope that people are not in good faith swayed by the amount of warnings Lemongirl942 has on her user page, because whether or not these editors are one and the same, there definitely does seem to be unwarranted belligerency against her. LjL (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have redacted the misusage of the templates by both the IP and RobotRat. I gave the user (not IP) a warning about the issue of templates. To me they are just sockpuppets so perhaps checkuser would be useful and possibly a temporary protection of your talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, the veil has been lifted, thanks to zzuuzz's suggestion. RobotRat and Aricialam are blocked as socks. Lemongirl942 has our sympathy for the harassment they had to endure. Please report any further incidents to a friendly admin--I suggest zzuuzz since they have more experience with this than I do, and are more friendlier. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Update 2: Thank you so much everyone. That was surely a relief. I will keep a lookout for any further attempts of sockpuppetry/harassment.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    True, it's a relief that I don't need to have "my motives" put under question when I try to file a SPI upon clear encouragement from multiple editors including administrators anymore, as this seems to have been handled. Good job. LjL (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: more possible veiled threats in the same vein as the original one coming here. Both this address (180.255.240.107) and the address originally making the possible threats (14.100.132.155) appear to not only belong to Singapore, but both specifically to SingTel Mobile. LjL (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected the talkpage for 2 weeks. SQLQuery me! 10:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Insults & reverts

    When trying to make orderly edits, I'm being stalked by User:BilCat who reverts even small housekeeping edits. When questioned, he doesn't explain his reverts, he deletes any respectful questions, and employs insults, e.g. using the term "sanctimonious prick" rather than explaining his apparently pointless reverts. In his talk page, he's been claiming illness for the last 10 years or so, so I'm not sure what kind of illness he's experiencing, nor if this is an explanation for his petty and abusive actions.Santamoly (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In Jamaica, it looks like Santamoly added a citations to Wikipedia, and BilCat tagged it, and Bgwhite removed it. Santamoly then went back to article and re-added the citation to a Wikipedia article, but this time in the form of an embedded link. Citing the manual of style, BilCat removed the embedded link and converted it into a {{see also}}. There also seems to be a minor dispute between the same two people in Dr. No, where the same thing played out: Santamoly breaks the MOS and adds poorly-sourced information, and BilCat cleans up with a terse edit summary. It looks like BilCat likes the MOS, and Santamoly doesn't even know we have one. This probably could have been amicably resolved with better communication. I'd suggest BilCat avoid calling people pricks and maybe try to better help less-experienced editors understand why their edits were reverted/revised. But, Santamoly, you shouldn't cite Wikipedia as a source; see WP:V and WP:RS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah well. Thanks, Ninjaetc., for your analysis, which I agree with. This edit is fun: Santamoly is serious, I think, when they say "Are you well enough to discuss?" but is being silly when they say "you'll delete discussion on your Talk Page in an apparent effort to hide your activities"--someone who's been here for seven years should know that there's no "hiding", and they should probably know how to link to a Wikipedia article. But it wasn't just "prick": it was "sanctimonious prick", and the question itself, basically "what did I do wrong", is quite valid. BilCat: you are being very unhelpful and as the more experienced editor you should really rise above this level. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm alarmed that you all seem to be suggesting that it's OK to aggressively delete/revert without discussion, and call another editor a "sanctimonius prick" when asked for discussion. Not just a simple "prick", but a "SANCTIMONIUS prick". Am I reading you all correctly? In the case at hand, the MOS doesn't say that an article must not use WP as a source; it does suggest that there may be times when a WP source is legitimate, e.g. in this case, when citing a "List". The only List of Jamaican Films in the entire universe is on Wikipedia. But questioning the revert is no reason for User:BilCat to call me a "sanctimonius prick". What's the next step from User:BilCat - personal threats? How am I to gauge what kind of illness User:BilCat might be suffering? Is it a mental illness? Is he a violent person? Since his illness has been going on for more than a decade, does that mean I have to step around his aggression and limit my contributions to Wikipedia until he's done with his "illness"? In today's case, I feel personally menaced by somebody calling me a "sanctimonius prick" in public. What else is BilCat up to on Wikipedia? Nothing good happens in Wikipedia when editors are permitted to be revert anonymously and to be aggressively abusive. That's why I'm asking for your assistance here. Santamoly (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is absolutely none of your business what sort of illness I suffer, and to be honest your attempts coerce me to violate my privacy are more serious than calling you a name, and a quite tame one at that. The edit notice regarding the illness states "BilCat is experiencing health issues that may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, this user may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated." It's a standard message that someone created, and though the first sentence is somewhat vague, the second one clearly limits its scope to responding to messages in a timely manner. That's all - it's not an excuse for anything else, nor an invitation to pry into personal matters, especially in the way you did it, as Drmies pointed out. One thing I can promise you: If you can't handle someone deleting you edits (with edit summaries, which are explanations), or calling you a relatively mild name, then you won't be able to handle some of the genuine problem users on Wikipedia, and should probably look for another hobby. - BilCat (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I ought to say a few more things here, but I'll try to keep things short. I lost my temper when I called the user a "sanctimonious prick". I don't generally call people such names, however well-deserved I may think them, and my nearly 10 years of editing history, all under this username, will show. I will try not to do that again in the future, as it is a personal attack, and there's no excuse for it. I've tried to disengage from interacting with this user on several occasions, but he doesn't seem to get that, in spite of the fact it's explained in the notes on my talk page. I could say a lot more, but honestly it'd be a waste of time. As to the false accusations of stalking, I have extensive editing history on all the pages where we interacted except for Dr. No. In those edits, I was genuinely trying to improve his edits per the MOS, but in hindsight they were probably better left alone. The Antonov situation is a different and complicated one, as it involves the Russian media's reports on the company's demise. Once the user made it clear he rejected Antonov's own rebuttal of the Russian claims, I judged that there was no use discussing the situation any further, and I stopped editing the claims of Antonov's demise. I had hoped the Jamaica-related edits would be different, as it doesn't involve the Russia-Ukraine disputes, but I was wrong. I'm not going to stop editing the Jamaica page, but I will avoid interacting with this user to the best of my ability, and not revert his edits. I only ask that he stay off my talk page. - BilCat (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Looks like we're done here, since no WP:DIFFs were provided by the OP, and in fact BilCat or anybody is likely to use a somewhat rude edit summary on their own talk page when frustrated with someone who repeatedly doesn't really know what they are doing. I suggest that this thread be closed, unless Santamoly wants to stick around for a WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, until you stuck your nose into this business, it looked like everyone was calming down. You haven't a clue about dispute resolution, so give it a rest. We're done here. Santamoly (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverts and unrespectful behaviour by User:Tuvixer

    User:Tuvixer is showing an unrespectful behaviour "editing" the article Josip Broz Tito‎. Tuvixer keeps reverting a modification (i.e the user opposes the insertion of a reference to the repression of political opponents during Tito's regime) in spite of the large consensus found in the Talk page. Please note that this user has shown in the past the same behaviour. User:Silvio1973,User:Peacemaker67 and User:GregorB tried in vain to convince Tuvixer to recognise the existing consensus. Additionally Tuvixer wrote that I am disgusting [[46]] and obsessed [[47]]. Perhaps such behaviour per se does not justify any sanction or any warning, but on the other hand it is abstronomically difficult to deal with him. And after all, am I supposed to be called disgusting and obsessed? Silvio1973 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, Tuxiver didn't say you were disgusting--"because of users like you I am sometimes disgusted with Wikipedia", though they did call you a "baby". But that was 7 January, as is the other edit. Now, I do not believe that there is a clear consensus on the talk page to replace the one clunky POV-ish sentence with another, and have no choice but to consider that both of you are edit warring. BTW, that conversation on the talk page, Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#RfC_January_2016, is interesting. Didn't know Obama was worse than Tito! It must be those death panels. Seriously, if y'all want to make some kind of statement about a general view, it won't do to cite one particular scholar saying "Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator" unless that one source has some particularly reliable overview of all scholarly sources. Also, it begs the question of what "most" is. Most scholars? Most Yugoslavians under Tito's rule? Most...Albanians? Both versions are just not good examples of encyclopedic writing. A new, better RfC should be proposed. Or send the thing to ArbCom, why not. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only user who is ignoring the talk page and the RfC is Silvio1973. He has edited the article many times without consensus, and when he is confronted in the talk page he backs up, but after a month comes back to the article and makes the same unexplained edit, well maybe hoping that it will not be contested this time. Silvio you do not own the article, and there has been no consensus on that RfC. The RfC ended a month ago, and now you are just trying to ignore the whole discussion, that is shameful. Again there is no consensus, so no "large consensus" this user is speaking about. User Silvio1973 has a tendency to back up when he is confronted with facts, and then, after the discussion has ended, he comes back to the article, makes some changes, and acts like nothing was discussed before. It is really frustrating and unproductive to have such user in a discussion. He ignores the facts and now he is again trying to bully me. Well that is not how Wikipedia works. I have been offline for a couple of days, and when I got online again I found that the article has been changed by Silvio1973, even though the RfC has ended a month ago, not in his favor. It was really awful to see that he tried to push his own opinion into the article just because I was not online for a couple of days. I have the right to speak the truth! It is very frustrating to work on Wikipedia when you have a user like Silvio who is trying to bully you. Anyone can read the talk page of the article, and anyone can see that the discussion ended almost a month ago, and that there was no consensus about what was proposed. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Drmies confirms this article is seriously POV. But this is not the issue. The issue Tuvixer is that you have to learn to better deal with other users. Your behavior is not acceptable. I am not your baby and I am not obsessed (to quote your words). Respect me as I respect you. I never dealt with you improperly. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm involved, so I am only commenting here as someone who has an interest in the article and has !voted on the poorly-worded RfC, not as an admin. IMO this article is not neutral, and Silvio's RfC was a good faith attempt to insert some balance into what is mostly a hagiographical article at present. Tuvixer's behaviour is problematic, as they apparently will not countenance any negative material being inserted into the article, and certainly not the lead, regardless of how well sourced it may be. However, this is not the forum. What is needed is the addition of reliably sourced material into the article body of the less savoury aspects of Tito's rule, and then a summary of that material being reflected in the lead in the usual way. I don't think this is in ARBMAC territory yet, and encourage the editors involved to look at inserting material about human rights violations by Tito's regime into the article body as a first step. If that proves impossible due to stonewalling, then perhaps it should go to ARBMAC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if the offending edit added "several concerns raised about the respect of human rights" and this had to be removed, and if the strongest term used in the introduction is "authoritarian", and if according to our article he was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator"--if that is what the introduction to our article on this dictator says (dictator, unqualified: [48], [49], [50]), then yeah there are some POV issues, and maybe it's a good thing that this thread is up at ANI; maybe some other editors will taken an interest in this article. Just sayin'. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Peacemaker67 sorry, but that is just not the case. I was just saying that the wording is poor, and that in the same sentence it is already stated that he was criticized as authoritarian, and that there is no point in adding something to that especially prosecution of opponents, because that is also authoritarian. It is like saying that "Tito was criticized as authoritarian, and concerns about him being authoritarian have been raised", which is a nonsense. I had no objection when Silvio1973 added content to the article body. Everyone can see that the lead is full with citations. That is because users like Silvio want to change only the lead, and do no contribution to the article body. Why is that so, I don't know. I am not against stating that he was criticized as authoritarian, just against repeating the same thing in the same sentence. It is problematic that user Silvio1973 does not follow the rules, he introduces changes to the article without consensus, you can see that in the article history. Examples: [Let's see if it flies], [tentative proposal], everyone can see what he was doing. Still when there was an ongoing discussion he edited the article without any pardon. How is this productive when an user constantly tries to push his own bad wording in the article? How can you work with a person who constantly engages in an edit war? The RfC ended a month ago, and then all of a sudden he comes back to it and proclaims, as a dictator, that the RfC is over and that he has a consensus, ignoring the whole discussion about the matter. How is that productive? It it really irritating and unproductive to have such user, who obviously breaks the rules with intent. Everyone knows that when there is a discussion about something on the talk page that you do not edit anything about the topic of the discussion until it is resolved. He ignores the discussion and anyone can see that. Also to add, I have asked him nicely many times, almost begged him not to edit war, bud he ignored that and started to edit war anyway. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies, this article on Josip Broz Tito‎ is POV to the verge of the indecency. And I would welcome your help to correct this issue. I have tried in the past but I faced the strong opposition of some users (go through the archive to get convinced). Does not matter how solid and abundant are the sources, there are 2 or 3 users (Tuxiver being one of those) refusing categorically any edit containing the smaller criticism to Tito. But I have not posted this ANI for this reason. I posted the ANI because Tuvixer's behavior is problematic, unrespectful and provocative. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your wording; of all articles of this kind, this is the worst I've seen. What I do not see is unacceptable behavior, though I see problematic behavior. Sorry; I understand you're frustrated, but this thread is not the way to fix the problems there. The article needs more, more experienced editors, and the way forward is, I think, through some well-defined RfCs. But maybe a peer review can be helpful as well--you might could check at Wikipedia:Peer review and see if someone is crazy enough to help you out. Or maybe post at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. There's ways. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Drmies, what do you think to leave a post on the Talk page of the article to share your concern? This would definitely help.Silvio1973 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my concern is that Silvio1973 is the poster child of a civil POV-pusher. In fact, I've observed the same behavior of his for years, and I don't remember an article where it is not exhibited. His modus operandi, with slight variations, is 1) Silvio has an opinion on something, usually controversial 2) He inserts that opinion in an inappropriate place in an article with flimsy sourcing, not considering the big picture 3) When reverted, he starts an endless debate, then seeks outside opinions, opening RFCs, running to multiple forums such as ANI 4) if the tactics fail, he will revisit the issue several months later, hopefully with different players involved.
    Yeah, maybe he has a point that Josip Broz Tito article is unbalanced, but his suggestion to "fix it" by inserting one sentence in the lead is ridiculous; his approach never results in making an article actually better, it just rehashes the same stuff ad nauseam and annoys pretty much everyone involved.
    One needs not to search far in the past to find an example: for example, the debate at Talk:Marco Polo#Extensive modification bordering to good faith disruption as recent as Feb 1, is one of closest to WP:CHEESE I've seen in actual encyclopedia. I'm pretty impressed that Crovata managed to keep his cool. No such user (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that said, he just reverted and re-reverted what appears to me to be quite a reasonable edit of Josip Broz Tito by Zoupan. There has to be some WP:OWN going on here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No such user, the article Josip Broz Tito is not simply unbalanced, it is actually indecent. The concern is that it is actually owned by a couple of users. Now, the reason of this ANI is another. The reason is that Tuvixer is problematic and unpolite. Tuvixer reverts whatever he does not like and does not even try to discuss (now he's doing the same with Zoupan). However, I am not obsessed and I am not Tuvixer's baby. Please find one (just one) post where I dealt with Tuxiver in un unpolite manner and after we will discuss. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What am I doing with Zoupan??? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    harassment of dual-licensed professional photographer content by User:Stefan2

    Ugh, I thought this whole thing was resolved when @Nyttend: put a notice on my talk page so I didn't have to send a billion OTRS notices for every one of my photographs I uploaded to Wikipedia. Now that I have accumulated over 500 edits, is the harassing behavior by User:Stefan2 by tagging over half a dozen of my photographs as possibly unfree content really necessary? See Could I get some intervention and quick closure at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 February 23 please? Why is this harassing behavior still allowed to happen to established editors?

    Also, why does Stefan2 argue "there is no evidence that the uploader and the Flickr user are the same person" when the combination of a Pinyin first name and a Wade–Giles last name is actually a very rare combination -- for such a name combination to be exactly the same is an extremely strong match. Such an argument by Stefan2 shows a clear case of white privilege and systemic bias, as well as really strong cultural insensitivity. In addition, he didn't appear to look at my user page, or my photography style, or my flickr page, or attempt to look at what defined me as an artist, at all. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Why did you remove the OTRS pending tag? Did you send permission to OTRS? If not, honestly, the deletion of File:Speeding J train on the Williamsburg Bridge.jpg is probably correct. Standard practice now, because of some historical problems, is to require the owners of previously published works to indicate that they are who they say they are and make it clear they still have the rights to the photo (i.e., they didn't exclusively license it to someone else). That your name is unique isn't really relevant to our practices: Historically there have been issues with people claiming to be someone who they are not. Respectfully, I don't see any indication of white privilege, though perhaps I'm the wrong person to be looking for it. (all that said, I love the contrast on that photo... it'd be a shame not to have it) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was told that having established my identity for some of my images on Wikipedia, I didn't have to establish my identity for each and every one of my photographs on Wikipedia. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be agreed that your identity has been verified, but you cannot expect all patrollers to notice that a link has been proved when the only notice of such is on your userpage. Either the Wikipedia or Flickr file description page needs to mention it or it's just not going to be noticed, and so the files will get tagged for deletion. BethNaught (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They should actually check the identity of the user without lazily tagging the image and sending me messages on my talk page, otherwise they're no different than a bot? That's common courtesy? That's what userpages are for? I pour and invest artistic effort into my photography. I write brief expositions on my user page. Stefan2 could have at least read my userpage before saying there was no evidence linking the identities of my Flickr account and my Wikipedia account. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not I agree with you, the fact is that some patrollers will not check your user page, they won't get reprimanded (at least if they didn't know you before), and this cycle will repeat. If you don't want to go through OTRS, just add something like this to the file description page: "see the links on my user page for confirmation I own this Flickr account". BethNaught (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just my two cents; you could explicitly state that you are dual licensing each and every single one of your photos or whatever you're doing, as your userpage is unclear. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) If you own the website, you may consider re-licensing the websites/images/selected images (if you own copyright of these) under CC SA license, and make sure to write on the website page's license/content reuse policy. While uloading you may refer the license page of the website. --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't wish to do that. I am pursuing a dual license strategy where Wikipedia is free to use my images, and people who discover my images through Wikipedia are free to use my images, and so on and so forth, and if it breaks out through that route or whatever, I have no control -- but if people contact me through my website, I can still keep my business through my website and through Flickr. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I take a look at this, it seems the problem is that User:Yanping Nora Soong posts images to Flickr under a restrictive license by default, and doesn't wish to change the settings on Flickr for those images... something having to do with her professional business. She then chooses images to upload to Wikipedia and does so, but does not want to go through the trouble of sending an OTRS email for the images that she does upload. I'm not sure a notation on the userpage would be good enough for OTRS purposes... at the very least a patrolling editor is going to hit these images from time to time and just not see it. The standard practice is for an OTRS ticket when there's a prior restrictive publication. I don't know if they allow a generic "Everything on my Flickr now and that I ever post there, that I also upload to Wikipedia myself, is licensed as follows" at OTRS. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What we need, per WP:IOWN, is a statement on Flickr that the Flickr and Wikipedia accounts belong to the same person. A statement on Wikipedia that the two accounts belong to the same person is insufficient. Nyttend's diff contains a link to Flickr where such a statement is being made. However, this statement was not mentioned on the file information pages of the tagged file, so I had no idea that I should look for links on the user's userpage. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I saw was that there is a Flickr user who claims to be called "Yanping Soong" and a Wikipedia user who claims to be called "Yanping Nora Soong". I found no evidence that the accounts belong to the same person, and per WP:IOWN, we need actual evidence that the accounts belong to the same person. The file information page contained no information about User:Nyttend's edit to your user page, so I had no idea that I should look for edits by Nyttend on your user page. Nyttend's edit does seem to be sufficient evidence that the accounts belong to the same person, though. To avoid problems in the future, consider listing all files on Flickr under a free licence (cc-by, cc-by-sa or cc-zero). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooh, I don't like this edit summary: "This photo is dual-licensed. I simply don't want most flickr users to know that it is free." That... kinda bothers me, that the motivation here is purely commercial. I mean, we provide the OTRS process so people can donate works they'd licensed elsewhere. Come on. You've got 16 file uploads. It's not like you've donated a collection of 10,000 (or even 1000) images. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, no the motivation is not commercial. I simply don't want to have to change the license on Flickr. There's no rule that says I can't use a free license for my photograph on Wikipedia, and a restrictive license on Flickr, if I've already established my identity. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Then send an email to OTRS for your 16 uploads. I see no compelling reason that this case is different than the thousands of other uploads of previously published works that happen constantly. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Uploading something to Flickr (which I do to back stuff up to the cloud) really should not be called "publishing" something. I have not published it or submitted it to a literary or artistic journal. In any case, according to User:Nyttend, "Since you've confirmed your identity, we don't need OTRS permission". Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Posting something to Flickr where it is publicly viewable is very definitely publication in the eyes of copyright law, which is what we are concerned with. BethNaught (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)Wikipedia considers it publication (as does copyright law, but that's another matter entirely). We offer you a simple, straightfoward method of handling that problem. Once again, I see no compelling reason to exempt you from the regular procedures that protect Wikipedia from people who upload the works of others claiming ownership. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      OTRS was designed for new contributors without established history, not from already active members of the community. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd expect to get my uploads tagged for speedy if it'd been uploaded elsewhere previously. Same as anyone else. OTRS is for everyone who publishes things in multiple places. If changing the copyright status on 16 Flickr pages is too damaging to your business, you have the alternative option of sending one e-mail to OTRS listing the files and donating them. Respectfully, we can't muck around with copyright stuff. There's just too much at stake. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, sure Stefan could have looked at your user page, but Stefan is in no way obligated to- if you were uploading 1000s of images; there's going to be a chance that some reviewer gets the wrong end of the stick. I think however that Stefan, the point is that Yanping wants to sell her photos that are on Flickr, and so doesn't want them under CC, which sort of defeats the whole point of a free license. Also, if you're only "donating" (in the loosest way possible) a couple of photos at a time, just email OTRS- just use a boilerplate template each time. Tt doesn't take that much effort. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It actually does because it requires opening many different tabs and keeping track of multiple clipboard items when making multiple uploads. Just because it seems easy for you, doesn't mean it is easy for me. Have some compassion for those with intense anxiety and ADHD, please. :) Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I the only one who sees Yanping Nora Soong assuming bad faith in this initial filing? Claiming white privilege and systemic bias is incredibly uncalled for and not the sort of dialog one starts when one wishes to call out a minor issue such as this. --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly I was trying to look past it in case there was something we actually could help OP with. But... since it all boils down to being unwilling or unable to send one email or change the copyright status of 16 images on Flickr, I'm starting to seriously doubt there's anything we can do. The whole commercial nature of it all makes me a lot less inclined to support creating some kind of exception, even assuming we can. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've closed these PUFs. Proof has been provided on Flickr that the two accounts are operated by the same person, and nothing more is required by our policies or those of Commons. It's definitely more convenient if you give a link on the image pages, but there's no requirement to add one. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is, this is what, the third? Fourth time this has come up. So clearly the way Yanping Nora Soong wants to work is incompatible with how wikipedia works with regards to previously published works. Multiple people on multiple occasions have explained what they need to do to prevent the situation happening, and they do not wish to do it, at this point its frankly their problem. While your closure solves the immediate problem (as when it came up, closures did previously) nothing is being done by Yanping Nora Soong to prevent the disruption and work they are causing others by not following some simple instructions on how to upload and label their images (as per the various people above). They will keep showing up here and making spurious complaints. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Far as I can see, there's nothing in that page which tells us the owner of that page has a wikipedia account called Yanping Nora Soong, or a Flickr account called Yanping Soong so I don't see how it helps resolve the issue. The description there is very similar to what you've said here and Flickr, but I can say I'm Barack Hussein Obama, born in Haiwaii, president of the USA since 2009 on my userpage. We actually have special policies covering possible imitation of famous people, but for copyright issues considering the importance we get it right, it's pretty much the same thing. We require confirmation that you are indeed who you say you are. In this case the owner of the website (which doesn't seem to have been confirmed) and the owner of the Flickr account (which seems to have been confirmed) and anywhere else you're simultaneously uploading the photos. It doesn't really matter how long you've been around. If you are unwilling to mention a Flickr or wikipedia account on the public page, you could always make a special page and put it in robots.txt and but noindex and similar tags in it so pretty much no search engine will have it. I think there are other ways of confirming the link via OTRS. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have encountered Yanping Nora Soong when somebody was hell bent on removing File:Speeding J train on the Williamsburg Bridge.jpg from an article, and while I constructively questioned its purpose in the article, I decided that consensus for it to stay was fine. Given the rough ride they have had on Wikipedia so far, and how image copyrights seem to be diametrically opposed to how people in the real world think (from my experience, at least), and assuming what they've written on their user page is true, I'm prepared to cut them a little slack as they're new and have been shat on a bit (though I'll remind them that Wikipedia is not therapy). Does anyone have any evidence that Nora didn't take the photographs? And why can't people who can work their way through the myriad of choices presented in Category:Wikipedia file copyright templates work with them to sort this out? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that YNS is not a new user, but a WP:FRESHSTART. They have not (so far as I know) revealed their previous ID, and wishes not to do so. Because of this, we really have no idea of how much experience YNS has. BMK (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't wish to associate myself with my male username. Not even people at my current workplace know, just a few people at HR (I had to disclose because I had to work out kinks with e-Verify). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To try and reduce problems, I've added a note to each image which mentions it's previously published on Flickr adding the info from the userpage confirming the link. If any of her other photos don't already mention Flickr, I haven't tagged them. I obviously couldn't do anything with the takenbynora.com images.

    While I agree it would be ideal if the Yanping Nora Soong would licence their images on Flickr the same way, or at least permanently mention the link on their Flickr page, I presume the archive.org cache is sufficient. After all, we don't delete images where the editor changes the licencing status on Flickr in the future provided we have confirmation that it was once freely licenced (admin or bot check). And if there's no doubt the Flickr account belongs to the editor her, nor any doubt they are willing to freely licence their uploads here, I don't see it's an issue even if it isn't something to be encouraged.

    I do agree if Yanping is going to continue to publish images elsewhere without freely licencing them in the other sites or at least providing the info in the uploads demonstrating the link to their account elsewhere there is a risk this will happen again. Perhaps Yanping should develop a standard template either directing people to the confirmatory links or directing people to their user page which they add to all their uploads to reduce the possibility of confusion.

    And it has nothing to do with white privilege and systemic bias. I'm pretty sure every reference to my user name online is me (but I'm not going to confirm any specific instance so since I could be wrong it's still WP:Outing to link anything else to me :-P). So to with every reference to my real name. But whichever name I use here, it doesn't mean that's sufficient evidence for copyright reasons that an account elsewhere belongs to me.

    Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, there's a deeper issue here as to YNS' behaviour that we've seen before at ANI and other spaces. She can't seem to WP:AGF in even mundane, barely confrontational disputes and often leaps straight to accusations of "harassment", often coupled with language like "white privilege", "gender bias", or "heteronormative oppression" in situations where the other editors trying to advise her have given absolutely no indication that they are prejudiced but are in fact just trying to inform her about policy or proper procedure. I too find myself wondering what her previous account was and--though her gender identity concerns are understandable and might make it too problematic to inquire too deep into the matter here--if I'm to be frank, I wonder whether this paranoid sense of of perpetual persecution was a part of her activity under the previous account.
    Anyway, since the issue is close to being resolved now and no one has raised the possibility of a boomerang up until this point, I think it would be counter-productive to do so now. But I think before this discussion is closed YNS should be strongly urged by as many voices here as possible that the kind of bad-faith assumptions like those lobbed at Stefan2 in the opening of this discussion are not appropriate on this project, will only delay the process of technical issues getting ironed-out and need to be avoided in the future. Accusing people of (even unwitting) racist/chauvanistic failings is, without question, a WP:Personal attack, and has become a pattern for this user. Enough leeway has been afforded here and I think it's time this user comport with basic community expectations of collegiality, collaboration and good-faith--rather than assuming that every issue she faces on this project is the result of another party being closed-minded/bigoted. Snow let's rap 10:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit War at Lavdrim Muhaxheri

    KewinRozz is has been in multiple edit wars and POV-pushing at Lavdrim Muhaxheri -- most recently today with Zoupan. There have been multiple attempts by various well intention and experienced editors to bring corrective action and guidance to this editor - including OhNoitsJamie, TU-nor and later me. I first became involved last month when a question was raised over at the helpdesk. He claims POV issues with the article Lavdrim Muhaxheri, while experienced editors point to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This editor has insisted that it is OR and SYNTH the other-way-around, along with claiming vandalism. The primary editor of the article who is involved with Kewin is Zoupan. Several editors believe that we have an issue of WP:CIR and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on. Since the editor continues to edit the article and talk around policies, attempts to wikilaywer to get his points across, I suggest a block on this user. The last block was from about a month ago, and I believe it was for 72 hours. During that time he appealed the block twice and was declined for failing to get the point of the block. Further correspondence since the block continues to reinforce that he doesn't get the point. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. Serious CIR and IDHT issues. User has no intention of reading and understanding policies and guidelines. Insisting on OR and SYNTH, while [hilariously] claiming it is the other way around. He has an answer to everything, only the answers are always proven wrong. There are lengthy discussions at the article talk page and the user's talk page.--Zoupan 23:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    KewinRozz has been blocked for 2 weeks for making yet another pointless weasel-word edit that he's been warned about on numerous occasions. Given that KR does not seem to be capable of communicating in a coherent manner, I'd support an indef block, though I'd like to get a little more feedback on that from other editors first. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I am holding out just a bit more presumption of good faith might come of this. I was going to propose 2 weeks, glad to see that is inline what you were thinking... Lets see if this will help him get the point. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am leaning towards indef, as he is way too proud to cooperate, continously incoherent, and to be frank, incomprehensive. CIR would be justifiable. However, seeing that Tiggerjay is willing to give him a chance, I'd say definitely an indef topic-ban at Lavdrim Muhaxheri, give him a last chance after this block (and hopingly reading through the guidelines and policies) to be constructive at other places. If the same old behaviour continues, indef.--Zoupan 00:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, perhaps a topic ban if we need to revisit this after the block expires. Perhaps a ban on all things IS related, and direct him to contribute on a completely different realm to see if that would help him find a better footing. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch! I got jabbed in the eye just in going through a few of KewinRozz's edits. There are some issues that don't seem likely to go away, even after s/he has had time out to cool their heels. Badly written WP:OPEDs about reliable sources?! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think 2 weeks is a fair choice. That will also give me time to rebuild my capasity for assuming good faith, which was beginnning to wear a bit thin. As for topic ban, it is worth noting that he never ever has editied any other article than Lavdrim Muhaxheri, as far as I can see. So there is actually no base for a broader ban, but a ban for Lavdrim is definitely a possibility. --T*U (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one TBAN (if necessary) at a time. It seems unlikely that s/he will return a reformed editor. At the least, a bit of time and room to breathe is a treat for worn out regulars. The unfortunate part is that it shouldn't have to come down to band-aid measures. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    My goodness, going through the last several threads on that talk page was quite possibly one of the most painful experiences I've ever put myself through on Wiki. The level of incompetence exhibited on the talk page is staggering. An indef block for a litany of alphabet soup is certainly reasonable. Blackmane (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Alleged BLP vios on Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers

    Christina Hoff Sommers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There's currently back-and-forth editing regarding an alleged BLP violation on Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. This talk page has been the cite of extensive discussion about the use of the label "individualist feminist" in the lead. I personally do not see any BLP violations (and think this is a blatant misapplication of BLP), but given that the people involved are regulars and the article in question is a constant source of contention, can an admin please review this? This is quite ridiculous all around. (On a side note, I should have just come here instead of reverting, I admit).

    Edits in question:

    All mentioned individuals were notified of this ANI on their user talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional comments & BLP redactions - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    • I thank EvergreenFir for raising this question here. I believe that claiming that a living person is viewed by "most scholars" as maintaining a "cynical ruse", without reference to sourcing for that claim, is a clear BLP violation. And that I made a good faith single redaction of that information on that basis. I would have no issues with the information, including a re-introduction of the material, if it were reliably sourced; nor with continued discussion of the main point in that section on the understanding that the redacted information had been mentioned. (Talking around the point, rather than directly to it). After some searching, I note that the apparent "source" backing the information is another Wikipedia article, Individualist feminism, which does not explicitly make this claim about the living person in question. I further note that of the sources used at that page - one, an NPR transcript, does not mention the living person; and the second, a WaPost review, does not mention the claim. I ask the administrators here to note my strong history of contribution at WP:BLPN, which I contest has been without fear, favour or partisanship. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The comment by Mark Bernstein was poorly judged, whether or not it violated WP:BLP. I thought of cautioning him about it myself, but Ryk72 removed it before I could do that. It may be that many sources consider Sommers anti-feminist, but the particular characterization of Sommers Mark Bernstein offered appears to be his personal view of her only. I doubt you would find such language in any reliable source. While one can reasonably discuss criticism of article subjects that appears in reliable sources, BLP talk pages are not forums for expressing one's personal contempt for them. This edit by Binksternet was thus also ill-advised. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    So long as we are discussing the Sommers article, I should note that the article was recently semi-protected by KrakatoaKatie following a request from Binksternet. By now three people (one of them me) have observed at WP:RFPP that that was a questionable decision; Binksternet looks to be involved in an editing dispute with IPs at Christina Hoff Sommers and agains an unfair advantage through article semi-protection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yikes, that's awful. The IP's have been nothing but constructive from what I can tell. Arkon (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes and no. I agree with some of the edits the IPs have made - but participating in an edit war, as both the IPs and several editors with user accounts are doing - is disruptive regardless. The article arguably needs full protection, not semi-protection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but I have to think you haven't seen a real edit war if this is one :) Arkon (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See the edit by Fyddlestix here. See IP 128.175.185.8 revert the edit here. See MarkBernstein revert the reversion here. See DHeyward revert the revert of the reversion here. See Binksternet revert that here. See an IP revert in turn here. I could continue; there have been several more reverts of the same content since then. Looks like an edit war to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, sorry, just used to more contentious war's I suppose. Arkon (talk)
    A couple points: this had been just discussed at BLP/N last week here [51] where it was pointed out trying to quantify the number of scholars that considered Sommers as "anti-feminist" as "most" was not proper. Also, any activity on Sommers page should be considered under the sanctions of the GamerGate arbcom case (she is well known as having spoken out against the mainstream opinion on GG, for example, as a panelist at the August 2015 SPJ Airplay event). --MASEM (t) 21:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I will continue. See PeterTheFourth continue to revert over the same content here, and Motsebboh revert him here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After some discussion on my talk page and at RFPP, I fully protected the page (not the talk page) yesterday. After that protection expires, if they haven't reached some consensus I think we have to step in with discretionary sanctions. In the future, if an administrative action I've taken (or not taken) is discussed here, I'd appreciate a ping. Thanks. Katietalk 12:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User still blocked, does he have to wait till 2019?

    User:LouisAlain, who received an IPBE on 10 April 2015 (after switching to a new ISP, he discovered his new IP address was hardblocked), and who lost it again a few days ago, was given the advice: After reviewing your account, it looks like you are using a web host to edit. If you disable the web host and edit through your normal service provider, you should not have any issues.

    • He wrote, "I find out that I've been blocked until... 11 February 2019". There are five range blocks that end on that day, the most likely being 88.190.64.0/24, hard blocked two weeks ago (11 febr), with an expiry time of 3 years, as {{webhostblock}}.
    • looking up 88.190.64.0 gives us: Dedibox SAS; Hosting Customers; http://www.dedibox.fr/; created: 2011-07-14T16:45:46Z
    • The listed website redirects to www.online.net/en, which offers dedicated hosting options. But that website also tells us that they no longer use the 88.190.0.0/16 range link (link mentioned on his talk page last year).
    • A google search for "Plages d'IP FAI" returns a post on a french forum where an admin lists French ISPs with their IP ranges (based on info from the Hurricane Electric website (link). 88.160.0.0/11 belongs to LouisAlain's ISP: Free (ISP).
    • If I'm not mistaken, 88.160.0.0/11 equals 88.160.0.0 to 88.191.255.255, which includes the blocked range 88.190.64.0/24

    If this is the reason why LouisAlain can't edit (I could be wrong), it wouldn't be the first time ISP ranges are hard blocked as "webhostblock", see for example User talk:Yellowcard.
    BTW: When did the open proxy policy change to include all (potential) webhost addresses? The template message reads: "web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia", but links to Wikipedia:Open proxies (which doesn't mention web hosts). At the moment more than 5 million IPv4 addresses are hard blocked for 3 to 7 years, based on {{webhostblock}} and {{colocationwebhost}}. Prevalence 06:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The lack of response here is concerning. A user who as far as anybody knows has been editing in good faith on several language wikis has now been blocked for five days. LouisAlain (a native French-speaker) has 70,000 edits over the last four+ years and there's no trace of any problems. He was granted IP-block exemption in April 2015 to resolve being unable to edit when he switched ISP to Free (ISP). Five days ago, his IPBE was removed and he is now unable to edit. Mike V, who removed the IPBE, believes that LouisAlain is editing from a webhost and has suggested that LouisAlain "disable the web host and edit through your normal service provider". But LouisAlain replies that he is "completely unable to tinker with anything associated with data processing procedures". There are three possibilities that I can see:
    1. LouisAlain is deliberately editing through a webhost and is maliciously pretending that he isn't for reasons unknown.
    2. LouisAlain has somehow managed to accidentally configure his internet access so that he is editing through a webhost and doesn't understand how to fix that.
    3. Mike V's information that implies LouisAlain's IP is a webhost IP is wrong, and LouisAlain is actually editing normally from his ISP.
    I have to say that both AGF and LouisAlain's record would tend to rule out the first option. I would be amazed if the second option were correct, as in 30-odd years of making online connections, I've never known anybody manage to accidentally create a connection that went via a webhost. So what's the chance that Mike's information is wrong? It's the likeliest option in my humble opinion, particularly given the information supplied above by Prevalence.
    Given all of that I'd like to ask for support for restoring LouisAlain's IPBE. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if you feel I've been ignoring this message. I've been quite busy IRL, as well as responding to others on Wiki and email. Per the privacy policy, I can't provide the specifics of LouisAlain's ISP(s). All I can do is reiterate that he is editing through a web host and that if he disables it, he should be able to edit just fine. If you are uncertain about my findings, feel free to ask another checkuser. Mike V • Talk 22:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I gave that impression, Mike, but we are blocking a productive editor for no reason in my opinion and it does not reflect well on us. LouisAlain's ISP is a matter of public record, as is the fact that the very French ISP in question now uses IP ranges that were previously allocated to webhosts. I don't believe that a checkuser can reliably identify an edit as coming from a webhost, other than by matching the IP against a list of webhosts (if I wanted to edit maliciously via a webhost, I could spoof any other information in the http request that a CU can detect). If that list is inaccurate - and there is evidence to suggest that is the case here - then we block a user who is editing via a normal ISP. It's noticeable that LouisAlain is free to edit on all other Wikis; are you suggesting that the checkusers on fr-wp, for example, are allowing him to edit there via a webhost? --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, tone is always hard to convey over the internet. :) Again, I can't comment on the ISP(s) provided. It could be right, it could be wrong, or somewhere in between. However, the information from multiple venues shows that it's a web host. I can't comment on the technical data on the French Wikipedia, as I don't have CU access there. (Nor have fr.wiki CUs shared it with me.) It's worth pointing out that the French Wikipedia permits the use of IPBE for more reasons than we do. Though, LouisAlain does not have IPBE on fr.wiki. Mike V • Talk 00:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm wrong in thinking that he is using ran75-5-88-190-64-31.fbxo.proxad.net? Because that's a freebox modem (with built in web server, RAS, router, WiFi hotspot for other freenet customers, etc..), not a web host. Prevalence 07:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike V: The reason LouisAlain doesn't have (or need) IPBE on the French Wikipedia is that no other language Wikipedia is blocking the IP that he's editing from. What damage is he doing on these other projects by editing via his current IP? You're the only person who seems to think it's a webhost, and it's about time you admitted the possibilty, nay the likelihood, that you're wrong. --RexxS (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram

    There seems to have been an onslaught of self-promoting articles created by staff of the Indian institute for higher learning Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram. Can anything be done about this? So far I've CSD tagged:

    There may be a couple more as well, logged in my CSD log, but unfortunately I can't see what's been deleted so cannot be sure if any red links were once articles of this nature. However, these are the articles which are repeatedly being created by different editors (Kurian kachappilly is now waiting for an admin response for the third time in 24 hours). Is there any sort of range block or any other means of preventing this spam of non-notable educators? Azealia911 talk 17:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted the ones here, found a couple of others. I gave one of them a final warning for disruption after he tried to spam your talk page. Katietalk 19:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible sockpuppetry + repeated violation of wiki deletion and revert policy

    Vodnafajka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Karelgott60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    158.195.218.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This page has been numerously time deleted on wiki after reaching a consensus on the first time with the several users, who show all signs of sockpuppetry, keep reverting it back and removing either bot or user deletion templates. Please investigate the matter and consider IP-wide ban. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have G4'ed the article, but you should open a case at WP:SPI to deal with the alleged sock-puppets. PS: Took the liberty of correcting the template used to generate the list at the top. Favonian (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sequel: temporarily blocked Vodnafajka for repeatedly recreating the Perny article in spite of warnings. Article salted. Favonian (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ‎M briglia05 disrupting alphabet articles

    This editor apparently has a very own opinion on how the names of the letters of the Latin alphabet are spelled in English. Articles like W, R, J, H and so on (some of the ones he has most recently edited) have these names sourced from well-known dictionaries, so this editor's unsourced changes were repeatedly reverted by me and other editors.

    I previously warned him and he had seemed to stop (but did not respond to the warning); he recently resumed and I warned him again, but today he is continuing, despite another general warning by Lambiam. I also consulted with Mr. Granger, who's always keeping an eye on these articles and has, like me, been reverting this editor.

    Addendum: just as I was done writing this, the editor messaged me on my talk page. I'm afraid that's still not a convincing explanation for the edits and this has escalated too much: M briglia05, come on, you can't just keep reverting multiple editors without sourcing your changes and while using spurious canned edit summaries like "Fixing a typo", even after you get multiple warnings on your talk page. LjL (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know, I can see some seemingly constructive edit, like this small addition, and this recent one would be sensible except for the edit summary, while this change seems misguided but he could have thought he was correcting a scientific inaccuracy. All I know for sure is that he needs to engage in communication and stop making serial unsourced changes, and this board seemed the only way to seriously attract his attention at this point. LjL (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at their edits I get the feeling that this is a problem with competence. One guess – just a guess, but in line with the character of the edits and talk page responses – is that the "05" in the username is their year of birth. So they may not see what the problem is – which then is itself a problem; competence is required and we have no remedial programs for holding the hands of problem editors.  --Lambiam 19:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Posting of Talk on Article page

    Being new to wikipedia I had considerable problems with my first article. I persisted until it was acceptable. During that time an editor became extremely agitated with me as I removed his edits. This was simply because I didn't understand. A lot of it was happening while I was still writing and I thought I failed to save my work. Anyway, the main problem was with references. I was entering them as I had been instructed by a Sandbox editor and didn't realise what was happening when some were changed and I deleted the changes. I was twice told I was now on my own! All problems were due to my being new to the system. It took me a while to even realise what 'view history' meant. Anyway, all of this sent me on a bad course with this particular editor. With the help of other editors I finally got through. However, when the article was posted he transferred some of the dialogue from my User Talk page to the Talk page on the article. This dialogue of course reflects the struggle I had to get the article completed but I maintain it should not be there in public view as it has nothing to do with the subject. I have asked him to delete it from here but refuses to and told me to contact admin. I have checked through numerous entries and do not find User Talk posted on the final article anywhere.

    I would be very grateful if you would remove this. The article is Feargus Hetherington. I have since improved as will be seen when my Joseph Swensen article is posted shortly. I have also completed verification on Gareth Williams (composer). I wish to continue work now that I know what to do but I would be grateful if this copying from my original user page could be removed. Why should it be of interest to anyone reading the article about a musician? Thank you Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Balquhidder2013, you have posted this same question at both the Teahouse question & answer page and at an administrative page there. People are generally helpful on Wikipedia and we are mostly glad to help new users. There is no reason however for you to post the same thing in multiple places. It is actually a policy violation (WP:FORUMSHOPPING) and it is a waste of other editors time. Everyone here is a volunteer. Please remember that and respect the other editor's time. Teahouse was the right place for your question. John from Idegon (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry. The editor in question told me to contact Admin to have it deleted. I wrote to Teahouse to find out how to approach Admin and then found a way. I am sorry. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    None of what is on Talk:Feargus Hetherington seems to have been moved from anywhere else, except that the page itself has been moved (renamed) from Draft talk:Feargus Hetherington when the article submission was accepted and created, as is apparently normal practice. I don't think that anything on the talk page reflects badly on Hetherington or yourself or anyone else, so it would be easiest just to forget about it, because almost no-one bothers reading Wikipedia talk pages. (Even if they should.) I am not an administrator but it is not clear what administrative action is needed here. MPS1992 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mikedonald711 - Problematic behavior (hoax, unsourced edits)

    Mikedonald711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Repeated posting of unsourced (per WP:CITE - [55][56][57][58]) and poorly-written material (per WP:STYLE - [59][60][61]), as well as a recent hoax article for a non-existent TV station (whose AfD nomination is archived here) and the addition of similar hoax material (per WP:HOAX - [62]). Has repeatedly been warned against adding unsourced material and advised to improve his writing style, but he has ignored all warnings. Creativity-II (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Changed section title to specify the issue. Hopefully an admin will review this soon. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a warning to their user talk though they've not responded to anything there in the past. If the current editing conduct persists let me know - alternatively per WP:DR you may wish to seek community views on a topic ban until they agree to abide by sourcing requirements. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by Klortho at my talk page

    Klortho, with whom I have had an editing dispute at Stephen Jay Gould, is harassing me on my talk page. He has left several ridiculous messages there, asking me what he should call me, as he apparently refuses to use my user name. I removed Klortho's messages, as they were time-wasting nonsense, and told him he was not welcome on my talk page, but he reverted me. See here, here, and here. Someone please advise this user to stop it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The most recent nonsense/harassment-type message Klortho left me can be seen here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I've never been in this situation before. As the user above indicated, we've been having a pretty acrimonious dispute on the Gould page. Everything I just wrote on his talk page was written in good faith. FxC calls it harassment and "ridiculous", but why is it ridiculous for me to refuse to indulge his vanity by using his ridiculous username? As I mentioned on in the dispute, his actions have shown him to be anything but a "knowledge creator", and the fact that this latest incident has escalated so fast, I think is ample proof of that. I am not as experienced as some here, but I thought that in general, there was a policy against reverting talk page edits. I was also taken aback when he wrote "you are not welcome here" -- am I wrong that even individual user talk pages don't "belong" to those users? *User pages*, I could understand would be somewhat of a different story, but talk pages, I'd think, are not "his" in the sense that he could just banish me and revert my comments, at his whim. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Klortho (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your refusal to use my user name, and asking me what you should call me instead, is puerile behavior. It is a waste of my time, and I will not indulge you. After I reverted you the first time (which I had a perfect right to do), you should have taken a hint and stopped leaving messages on my talk page. It shows a great deal about your lack of seriousness as an editor that you would waste time trying to discuss nonsense with me, instead of actually addressing the substance of the dispute at Stephen Jay Gould. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I really have to say, that I am at a loss as to how to deal with this person. It's been impossible to have any constructive dialog with him whatsoever, and I have tried. Klortho (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Really. So you consider it perfectly reasonable to waste another user's time by talking about his user name, and edit warring on his talk page, instead of addressing more substantive issues, such as the content dispute at Stephen Jay Gould? I can't wait to see what the larger Wikipedia community's response to that will be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    [I made this edit at the same time FxC wrote his, above.] Okay, I found it: WP:TPO: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." FxC was very quick to assume bad faith on my part, and delete my comment. And, I'd add, I didn't put it on the Gould talk page, because it was a private question, and nothing to do with the content of that article. Klortho (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not edit your comments to change their meaning. I removed them, which I had every right to do. Your "private question" was harassing, puerile, time-wasting nonsense, as already noted. You might want to read WP:REMOVED: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your "private question" was harassing, puerile, time-wasting nonsense," -- that's actually not for you to decide. Klortho (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. I can of course decide how I see your messages on my talk page, and remove them if I judge them to be harassment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "I removed them, which I had every right to do." The way I read [WP:TPO], the never is indeed in reference to editing or moving to change its meaning, but should not still applies: "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Klortho (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You've already been told that what you're quoting applies to the talk pages of articles, not to user talk pages. I quoted the rule regarding user talk pages, WP:REMOVED, and you ignored it. I'd call that disingenuous. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FKC is correct. See WP:UP#CMT. You can remove comments by others from your own user talk page. Enough of this nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, TIL some nuances on the policies about editing others' comments. I apologize to reverting FxC's deletion of my comment from his user talk page -- I wasn't aware that was against the rules. But, I'd also like to point out, for the record, that the policies are clearly not black-or-white, that "common sense applies", and that while WP:REMOVED says "policy does not prohibit users ... from removing comments ..., archiving is preferred" (emph. added). And I'd suggest that FxC is wrong, above, when he wrote "what you're quoting applies to the talk pages of articles, not to user talk pages." Talk page guidelines is a more general page, "about talk page etiquette", and User pages is more specific, and and not so much concerned with etiquette. The scope of the advice on etiquette clearly does also encompass users' own talk pages, as evidenced by the admonishment to never edit or move a comment to change its meaning. So, FxC may not have technically broken the rules, but it was nevertheless extremely rude behavior, totally unwarranted by [my polite question]. He has a serious problem with civility, in general; as anyone can see by checking his user talk page. And, I'd like to know, if I have a non-content related issue with him in a discussion on the talk page, what am I supposed to do? Does his "You are not welcome here" have any weight? Klortho (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it does have weight. Other than mandatory notices, posting on their user talk page would be evidence of harassment. Users with disagreements sometimes "ban" one another from each others' talk pages. I don't know if there's official guidelines or policy on this, but it's common practice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Klortho, insisting on calling FreeKnowledgeCreator "FxC" is provocative. You should stop this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked him politely for an alternative, and this is where we landed. Klortho (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you call a person by their name. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three points - First, per WP:OWNTALK: "... users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages," and that's the overriding guideline regarding a user's ability to decide what remains on their talk page. Second, EvergreenFir I think you may be alluding to this, per WP:NOBAN, "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request," so if a user asks you not to post on their talk page, you shouldn't do it. Continuing to do so could be evidence of harassment in the worst case, and in the best case it's not acting civilly. Third, per WP:CIVIL you should avoid name calling. Calling someone by something other then their name is, by definition, name-calling. It's one thing if an editor uses an abbreviated version of their name, but if they don't you call them by their username. Particularly when you choose to use a disparaging way of referring to their username. Onel5969 TT me 00:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP likes to change wikilinks into piped WP:EASTEREGGs that, for example, point to pov forks ("x view of y") instead of the subject itself. IP has been warned numerous times here, here, and here, but seems deaf to our warnings. Example diffs: [63], [64], [65], and the latest such edit. Pretty much everything in the IP's contribution repertoire consitutes this type of editing. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It should also be noted that in more than 2,000 edits, not one has been to an article or user talk page, or been accompanied by an edit summary. JohnInDC (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the most recent edits seem to be fine--at least they've not been reverted. This is good since it avoids a redirect, and this, cited by HyperGaruda, adds a link that parallels a piped link in that same sentence. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I did not go straight to WP:AIV, nor am I saying that the IP should be outright blocked. However, the amount of inapt linking is considerable, so what do you do when one does not listen? - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, bypassing a redirect is not really recommended per MOS:NOPIPE. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends on the bypass and the redirect. This case was sort of the opposite of the MOSPIPE situation. Look, I understand the concern; my cursory observation suggested it was getting better. I don't appreciate non-communicators, and if need be I will block for it (it's a kind of disruption), but I don't think this is there yet. The::r admins may disagree. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view the problem, now, is that this editor has been given in the past to some pretty inapt or confusing edits like this or this; and, while their recent edits may be a bit better, given their utter failure to communicate, the only way to be certain that each new edit is in fact unobjectionable is to look at every one of them. This is tiresome and should not be necessary. Perhaps a note on the editor's Talk page from someone who hasn't heretofore tried, and been ignored (and who has the authority to back it up with a block if the editor fails to communicate), would be helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor repeatedly submits blank pages to AFC, and attempts to hide evidence of it.

    Please see this diff that shows how User:RaqibHasanCherry is repeatedly submitting blank "drafts" to AFC. Every decline by reviewers contains a warning not to do so again. Also look at the history of the user's User:RaqibHasanCherry/sandbox and Draft:RaqibHasanCherry for further evidence of this disruptive behaviour. The editor's contribution log shows no constructive edits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    All have been today, and there appears to be no understanding at all. I've issued a 24-hour block to stop the disruption and try to get them to talk - if it continues after that, feel free to leave me a note. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Incident report on User:Marlindale for long-term edit warring on Bach page

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

    This is to report long-term edit warring and forum shopping by User:Marlindale on the Bach Talk page. He has persistently been trying to force his edits into the article within sections which have clearly been indentified on the multiple RfCs which I have opened trying to allow other users to provide comments. In addition, I have made several page protection requests to protect the article during the RfCs which were granted by two separate administrators (Ymblanter and MusikA). Another administrator (EdJohnston) had indicated that the page protection requests should now defer to reporting User:Martindale for ANI concerning his disruptive editing. I further contacted the original page protection administrator (Ymblanter) who also indicated to make a report to ANI.

    The editor User:Marlindale has also been involved in further edit warring and forum shopping even though the DRN process is not supposed to be opened when there is an on-going RfC (first RfC started here [66]), and he managed to hook-in one of the unsuspecting voluteers there to close the still open RfC when he saw that the RfC was not going his way (the first RfC had 4-5 editors supporting the change against 2 opposed). When a second RfC (second Rfc was started at this diff [67]) was opened, User:Martindale again started to force his edits into the article while the RfC was only midway through its open period, again he did this when the 2nd RfC was not going his way when new editors were Supporting the change against his Opposition to it (at that point it was a 3 support, 2 oppose RfC). The muddled RfC was then again closed again as a no conclusion/no consensus result following the disruptive editing by User:Martindale.

    Now I have had to open a third RfC for the attempt to improve the Bach Legacy section, and a third month is passing with this repeated disruptive editing from User:Marlindale who will not let the RfC process take its normal constructive course. If left to his own devices, it appears that User:Marlindale will indefinitely use disruptive editing to impede the RfC process against Wikipedia policy. Normally an RfC is opened for the purpose of attaining good faith participation by editors. Is there any way to control this long-term edit warring by User:Marlindale against the RfC process which he has impeded 3 times now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Fountains-of-Paris - The only reversion I see that Marlindale has recently done to your changes on the Johann Sebastian Bach article is this (which I'm still trying to figure out what the reason was for). Other than that, Marlindale hasn't touched the article since this edit on February 15. Can you provide me with diffs where you've discussed your issue with the user, as well as other relevant diffs that are relevant and support your statements here? I see this RfC you started, as well as this one, but diffs will help me to understand your concerns and try and assist you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: This is the list of disruptive edits made by Marlindale in reverse chronological order which I will try to hat in order not take up too much space. I can then provide the diffs for the individual edits recorded from the history which I present. For the RfC which was closed on 22Feb, the disruptive edits came on 14Feb to 15Feb while the RfC was still open but trending against User:Marlindale;
    List of Marlindale disruptive edits of 14Feb to 15Feb for the RfC which was open until 22Feb close

    (cur | prev) 17:37, 15 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (127,927 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎18th century: It's Sara not Sarah Itzig Levy (Applegate and another reference)) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 04:30, 15 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (128,092 bytes) (+251)‎ . . (→‎18th century: CPE in Berlin about 30 yr.) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 04:02, 15 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (127,842 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎18th century: ]] after WFB) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 03:55, 15 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (127,840 bytes) (+345)‎ . . (→‎18th century: Berlin, WFB, Sara Levy) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 03:39, 15 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (127,495 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (→‎18th century: simplify for style) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 23:07, 14 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (127,499 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (→‎18th century) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 22:41, 14 February 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (127,488 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (→‎18th century: wording and punctuation; refs not straightened out) (undo)

    This is the second set of Marlindale disruptive edits against the other previous Jan RfC while it was still open in January

    (cur | prev) 20:28, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,434 bytes) (+240)‎ . . (→‎19th century: Singakad - few or no public (choral) concerts (early on)) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 20:08, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,194 bytes) (+262)‎ . . (→‎18th century: Berlin Sing-Akademie founding) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 17:22, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,932 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (→‎18th century: Berlin was not just an example) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 05:39, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (125,014 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Shift to Berlin: punctuation) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 05:10, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,002 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎Shift to Berlin: Sara Levy time sequence with CPE then WF) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 05:00, 18 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,997 bytes) (+651)‎ . . (→‎18th century: CPE and WF Berlin decades) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 18:59, 17 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,142 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (→‎18th century: new para for positive contributions) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 18:51, 17 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,111 bytes) (+173)‎ . . (→‎18th century: WF putting mss up for auction) (undo | thank)

    This is the third set of Marlindale disruptive edits against the previous Jan RfC (he did two sets of separate disruptive edits even after Ymblanter protected the page the first time)

    (cur | prev) 04:53, 12 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,613 bytes) (+38)‎ . . (→‎Death (1750): trying to clarify who inherited what compositions - it's complicated) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 23:03, 11 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (125,524 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Death (1750): punctuation) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 22:58, 11 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,523 bytes) (+625)‎ . . (→‎"Musical Estate", Manuscripts of compositions: CPE, Wilhelm Friedmann roles) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 22:31, 11 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (124,898 bytes) (-15)‎ . . (→‎Death (1750): tangible estate seems not to need a separate subsection?) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 21:21, 11 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (124,913 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎"Musical Estate", Manuscripts of compositions: period before footnote) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 21:16, 11 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,913 bytes) (+960)‎ . . (→‎Death (1750): tangible, then musical (compositions) estate. Draft) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 04:36, 8 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (123,953 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Ornamentation: second page 'of" not "or") (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 04:26, 8 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,953 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (→‎Köthen (1717–23): Johann Christian more notable than Johann Christoph Friedrich) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 20:40, 7 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (123,923 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Other: Cornell is in Ithaca, NY) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 20:36, 7 January 2016‎ Marlindale (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,915 bytes) (+203)‎ . . (→‎Other: book Applegate "Bach in Berlin") (undo | thank)

    My next post will be for the Marlindale disruptive edits against the previous RfC which was closed in January. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah. Your converting to the diffs was a big time save for me. Let me know if I can provide more info on the details of the history of these RfC disruptions. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I grabbed the diffs for you using the list you hatted above (I changed them to a {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} since they're not archives being closed). Listing them all here so that others can look through them:
    Top list: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].
    Middle list: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82].
    Bottom list: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93].
    Hopefully this will make it easier for others to go through and follow :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fountains-of-Paris - Looking through each diff that you provided with the edits made to the article itself, I'm not understanding what the problem is with some of them. This edit was a simple grammar/minor fix, as well as this one, this one, this one, and this one. The others (here and here) were additions of content with references, as well as this, this, and this -- are these the edits that are in dispute? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah. The larger edits (over 200bytes and over 300bytes) where bringing information into the article which was still being discussed in the open RfC on the Talk page. User:Marlindale was installing and enhancing his version of the edit into the article which still had not determined which edit the RfC outcome would indicate should be supported. User:Marlindale was forcing his version of the edits into the article while the RfC was still open. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fountains-of-Paris - Okay, so we're actually referring to just these edits then: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah. It looks like you have separated the larger edits from the smaller over-edits which Marlindale was forcing into the article while the RfC was still open. The understanding on the Bach page was that no one was to make any edits to the Bach legacy section until the RfC was closed. (It was listed by User:SoftL on the Admin Request for Close page as I recall). My computer access is about to end for the evening at closing here, possibly time for some other details as needed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: I did not list the RfC on the Requests for Closure AN board. It was listed by Fountains-of-Paris himself: [101]. I later retrieved the thread from the archive when it was bot-archived prematurely [102] (I had seen it mentioned on Francis Schonken's talk page that Francis had inappropriately attempted a close himself even though he was an involved editor). Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Ymblanter, MusikAnimal, and EdJohnston. I've seen this page at RFPP a couple of times and I have an opinion mulling in my mind, but I'd like to hear if they have anything to say since they took the admin actions and I didn't. Katietalk 20:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I can not really say much. I fully protected the article on 13 January, followed by a couple of days continuous edit-warring between the topic starter and Marlindale. It was very difficult for me to understand who is right and who is wrong, it was just some disruption going on. Fountains-of-Paris indeed asked subsequently for my advise, and I advised for ANI, since it does not look to me like a situation which one admin can easily understand without discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from someone who has not edited the article but who has observed it from afar for the past six weeks: There is only one RfC open on the talk page at this time, and its sole question is whether to change the date ranges in subsections in the Reception/Legacy section of the article [103]. That's it. The subsections of that Reception/Legacy section will remain divided into century subsections until the RfC is closed. That's it. There is no current "understanding on the Bach page was that no one was to make any edits to the Bach legacy section until the RfC was closed", because the RfC has nothing to do with the content of the section, only its subheadings.

      I regret to need to say it but Fountains-of-Paris is a novice editor (~500 edits) with apparently a serious lack of clue (hence this rambling, malformed, non-diffed ANI) and a case of obstinacy and logorrhea. While he may have had legitimate grievances about people trying to override or preemptively close his RfCs, Marlindale is not currently doing anything wrong and hasn't since the close of the previous RfC on February 22. That RfC was closed, despite Fountains-of-Paris's claims, legitimately and fairly by Robert McClenon. If Fountains-of-Paris wants to revisit edits made by Marlindale prior to February 22, in my mind it is too late for an ANI on the subject (the appropriate time for that would have been prior to February 22). At this point, I personally think he will simply have to negotiate on the Talk page each individual point. I do think besides his lack of experience here there may possibly be a CIR issue on Fountains-of-Paris's part. I have no opinion on the merits of Marlindale's edits (I haven't looked into all of them closely enough), but offhand my perception is that he is genuinely trying to improve and stabilize the article and is frustrated with Fountains-of-Paris, perhaps not without cause. I believe that going forward Fountains-of-Paris needs to discuss on the Talk page (not with RfCs but with single threads) any specific single sentence he is concerned about -- singly, concisely, and one-at-a-time (not multiple facts/sentences at once in one thread). Softlavender (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    After reviewing all of the edits listed by Fountains-of-Paris on this ANI and made by Marlindale, I have to agree here. I'm really not seeing any problems with the edits made by Marlindale to Johann Sebastian Bach. They were either grammatical corrections, minor fixes, or content expansion with sources cited properly. Softlavender is correct in that the RfC discussions on the article's talk page seem to only involve the formatting and changing of dates. They appear to have had nothing to do with the content that Marlindale added. Even if there was a legitimate dispute, the edits that Marlindale made does not constitute edit warring at all. As I pointed out above, Marlindale made one edit on February 25, and with his/her previous edit(s) being on the 18th. Given my findings, I'm recommending no action be taken on Marlindale. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DePiep

    @DePiep: accused me of being a "fucking troll" after I informed him that he shouldnt make bold edit on template protected pages[104]. He reverted my edit[105], and told me to never write on his talk again[106] (and here "fucking trolls"). Im I allowed to add {{subst:ANI-notice}} on his talk page? Christian75 (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Christian75 - No worries; I did it for you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are required to notify them with {{subst:ANI-notice}}, since you have brought their case to discussion here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So, looking through the diffs provided here... DePiep, what's with the "fucking troll" comment you made here? And Christian75, aren't we all encouraged to be bold? I don't recall there being an exception to the Template namespace, as you've pointed out with your message here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Not template mainspace, but protected templates which only admins and template editors can edit. DePiep is a template editor) - see Wikipedia:Template editor#Abuse "The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply because those without this right are unable to perform the "revert" step" Christian75 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Christian75 - The section you linked me to above (Wikipedia:Template_editor#Abuse) refers to edits that could resemble vandalism or in a matter show demonstrates that your account may be compromised, or using the Template Editor user right to gain an upper hand in a dispute. That's abuse; testing or making bold changes is not abuse. For the record, I agree that the guide says that changes to templates that are protected should come after discussion and testing. Yeah, it is a highly recommended thing to do, since there's risk of breaking widely used MediaWiki and interface templates, and not doing so is very unwise. I completely understand your concerns, and I think that your message (in general) wasn't out-of-line (although I would have worded it a bit differently). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Editing disputes" and "vandalism" are both subsections under the section Abuse. As I read the text, abuse of the template editor right is (of course) vandalism and "editing disputes". In "Editing disputes" it says BRD does not apply. I agree, it isnt as hard formulated as e.g. wheel waring. But its not the first time he did it (bold edits). Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Infobox_drug_changes_22_Februari_2016:_Licence_data - he proposed a change. One editor "oppose", but he made the change anyway. Christian75 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Christian75 - I will acknowledge your assertions given the importance of the rule and high risk that editing outside the guidelines can pose. I've attempted to reach out to DePiep regarding his comment towards you, but he has declined to participate in this discussion. I have done all that I can; I will leave this discussion for an administrator to take over. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not engage. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, with all due respect, you... kind of... already did... with that comment you made here. Can you at least help me out and explain what that was about? I just want to help resolve this. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop pinging me. Can't you read? -DePiep (talk)
    DePiep, I don't see anywhere on this discussion where you've asked me to stop pinging you. But I will respect your wishes because you have now asked me to do so. I will note that your tone and your conduct is both very passive aggressive, and absolutely unnecessary. Calling someone a "troll" is not constructive, nor do I feel that it aligns with Wikipedia's civility policy. You've been an editor for 10 years; you should absolutely know better. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an unambiguous unprovoked personal attack. Almost exactly 11 months ago, DePiep got a block for a similar attack on another editor. This won't be the first and it won't be the last. Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Blackmane linked to DePiep's outburst at me, I'll say here that I kind of deserved that, as I was upset with DePiep for something he had done earlier (used COI claims as a casual PA in a content dispute) and in the dramafest that ensued, he actually apologized and promised not to do it again, and I missed it and pressed on. The outburst came after that. And got him blocked. I apologized for missing his apology, when I supported his unblock.
    DePiep is crusty and difficult sometimes but a really valued contributor. If you look at the edit history of the template - an infobox - it is pretty much all DePiep. He is trying to make it good.
    I also want to note that this outburst came over a dreaded infobox dispute. There has been a good discussion ongoing there since early Dec 2015 about better naming and arranging fields in the drug infobox, which is really complex. If you look at the history of the Talk page, DePiep has been in there close, negotiating details, and Chistian75 has been dropping in and out.
    It is frustrating to be negotiating complex detailed stuff and making changes as things are agreed on, and a) have someone drop in sometimes to disagree, and then even b) give you a user-talk page warning about something you do all the time (Christian75 -- i hope you can hear that) -- so I have some sympathy for DePiep here. That said, "Fucking troll" is out of line.
    DePiep I know you asked not to be pinged, but if you will apologize for the outburst, the drama can end. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for the using the F-word. Not the T-word. -DePiep (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew.tisler returns after a 6-month block

    Andrew.tisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned from a recently expired 6-month block for disruptive editing by persistently adding unsourced content in film articles by consistently adding unconfirmed production companies. They previously edited as a sockpuppet through an IP if I am correct. After their recent return, they've returned disruptively adding unsourced content, refuses to communicate and ignores warnings. Recent unsourced content are as such [107], [108], [109], [110] and [111]. I ask that an admin block this user indefinitely. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The last two blocks were made by User:NeilN, who should be well placed to review if this is a return to disruptive editing that requires an indef block. Fences&Windows 11:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment from Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)

    Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has started to harass me. When I first reverted his edit, he called me "idiotic," then "a pain in the ass." Recently, he said on his talk page that I "knew nothing" and am "ignorant." I gave him a gentle reminder to be courteous, which he deleted, and said that unexperienced users like me shouldn't be giving reminders to experienced users like him (I'm not even new). I told him nicely that just because I am "new" doesn't mean I can be called idiotic and other insults, and that if I am harassed, I have the right to give him a reminder. I didn't want to bring this to an administrator, so I tried to make peace with him my saying that we could always debate on the subject's talk page, without him throwing insults.

    He then left this threatening message in my talk page:

    "I just wanted to drop you a note to let you formally know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

    Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks."

    I am extremely uncomfortable with BMK being so hostile. I have not and will never attack him back. I fully admit to mild edit warring because he wasn't giving a reason for his changes (which I feel kind of guilty of), and when I realized we had entered edit-war territory, I recommended the discussion be moved to talk instead of edit warring (which it was).

    I hope I can receive help. --Andymii (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs? Nobody can comment until we know what this is all about, in context. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Shock Brigade Harvester Boris beat me to it. We must have evidence supporting your assertions of harassment and threatening behavior. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Sure, right here.

    Incident 1 Incident 2 Incident 3 Incident 4 Incident 5

    --Andymii (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, on the Christopher Reeve article, in editing-out-of-spite-and-ignorance, I think your behavior is arguably worse than BMK's so I can understand his frustration. The correct procedure when something is uncited is to tag it with "citation needed", not to delete it. And the correct behavior when something is cited correctly but you don't like it, is to discuss it on the Talk page, not delete it. So while I'm not excusing BMK's apparent hostile tone, you are at fault here policy-wise or procedure-wise more than he is in my opinion, and your apparently snidely titled post on his talk page doesn't speak well for your level of civility, either. [112]. Lastly, anyone is free to ban anyone else from their own talk page. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Content dispute that has spilled over into behavioral problems. BMK's edit summaries go against WP:NPA, but he's perfectly within his rights to ask you to stay off his talk page. He's not actually harassing you. You're actually closer to harassing him by filing this report specifically in response to him suggesting that the two of you avoid talking to each other.
    Both of you (User:Andimii, User:Beyond My Ken), just don't address each other, provide minimal commentary on the other person's points, and don't include any emotional content when addressing those points. BMK is seeking wider input at the relevant WikiProjects. Unless anyone can think of any action (preventive, not punitive) that needs to be taken regarding the personal attacks by BMK, I'm not really seeing much else to be done here. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, he created a section in my talk page called the Wiki Busybodies Club. I responded to it, and, via procedure, named it the same. I would never do that. --Andymii (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)--Andymii (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, the message to stay off is not rude because he's telling me to stay off, but because it is a direct response to an effort to end the edit war (which as I said, I really regret). --Andymii (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)--Andymii (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither of you has acted optimally, blowing things out of proportion. How about being the better person and letting it drop, showing you're above all this? On a closely related point the term "harassment" is thrown around far too casually on Wikipedia. Characterizing minor personal tiffs as "harassment" risks trivializing the very real and dangerous incidents of harassment that do occur (real-life stalking and such). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More advice: You definitely need to start leaving an edit summary for every one of your edits. And you need to immediately stop labeling your edits as "minor" when they clearly are not. Also, learn to indent your posts properly with colons so that they nest correctly under the post you are replying to (right now all your replies on this thread are out of alignment). Lastly, you're in a bit of a hole right now, and with this edit I think you are digging it deeper; as I mentioned before, anyone is allowed to ban anyone else from their own talk page, for whatever reason they please. I suggest you stop now before a WP:BOOMERANG of some sort ensues. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I will follow up what User:Softlavender has said on one point. Looking at your user contributions, it appears that you intend to label all of your edits as minor, but that you occasionally forget to mark an edit as minor. You should only label your edits as minor if they really are minor edits. Otherwise you appear to be deliberately evading scrutiny. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for all your tips. I am sorry for my mistakes, and want this to end. I know we have both made mistakes; I hope we have each other's (and you admins') forgiveness. I know you guys have criticized me, but now I think about it, I'm more knowledgeable about things. So thank you.

    Meanwhile, I will try and not esacalate this any farther. On the Reeves talk page, I will try to remain civil, and I hope BMK does to (I don't hate him).

    I hope I am now a better editor from here on. Thank you for not taking any further action to either of us. --Andymii (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    New sock of User:Dragonrap2

    Please see 104.243.160.113 (talk · contribs)

    AKA... WXA53 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki (talk · contribs), 104.243.169.127 (talk · contribs), 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs), Futuristic21 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki2 (talk · contribs), Mega256 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki The Third (talk · contribs), Mega257 (talk · contribs), Mega258 (talk · contribs), Futurew (talk · contribs), 104.243.166.108 (talk · contribs), 104.243.170.125 (talk · contribs), and Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues (talk · contribs).

    I would suggest an immediately block, as has been done in the past. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Magnolia677: This belongs on WP:SPI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually report each new sock of Dragonrap2 here. In the past they've been blocked immediately. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an LTA on Dragonrap2? And is there a quick method for dealing with an LTA sock? In any case, please see this and block. I reported it an admin who had indicated he'd help with this troll at Magnolia's talk, but apparently he is offline. Thanks. 06:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
    The socks are easy to spot. All edits are to Louisiana towns or Louisiana radio station templates, and all the IP addresses are registered in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. The last one you reported here was never actioned. I suggested to you at that time that WP:SPI was the more approriate venue. I know that it can grind exceedingly slowly at times, but it does grind exceedingly smoothly. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a clear legal threat by User:2602:306:8B63:CE80:35AE:C8C8:1C33:80EA (who claims to be Max Lobkowicz of Legal & Business Affairs, Village Holdings, Inc 310-568-0066).

    The threat came after I reverted a series of blankings of Talk:Susan Block here by a different IP User:2602:306:8B63:CE80:4167:E44:6A8B:AF39 and warned that IP here. That IP identified himself as "Max Lobkowicz, GM, The Dr Susan Block Institute" in a later blanking of the talk page here I can only assume that both IPs are the same person.

    I agree that the address should be redacted from the talk page, but I see no valid reason for most of the initial removal from this talk page. Meters (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) WP:NLT, WP:OUT[113]. Nevertheless, there may be WP:BLP-issues in need of revdelling, though the address of Mrs. Block is available on various public websites (white pages, 411.com, etc). If this is "life threathening" as Mr. Lobkowicz claims, a Wikipedia talk page may not be their biggest issue. Kleuske (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=707204835"