Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ttt74 (talk | contribs) at 14:37, 29 February 2016 (→‎Repeated Muhammad-related disruptions and personal attacks despite warnings: reply). 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]
    • support Even after this was raised, Hengistmate's editing has been that of deliberately abusing sources against the consensus of others in order to push a personal agenda. I make no comment on whether he has been socking again. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • support per Andy.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose that article be full-protected until editors sort it out

    The name-calling, edit-warring, and general nonsense is continuing on the article (now with additional participants). Since there seems to be no end in sight and no successful resolution as yet to this ANI, I suggest that the article be indefinitely full-protected until such time as the participants engage in some form of WP:DR and reach consensus regarding all of the disputed items. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. "The name-calling, edit-warring, and general nonsense is continuing on the article (now with additional participants)" is simply untrue (so post a diff to show this, don't just email me). There are no edits of such form (barring one bit of everyday IP hit-and-run) for nearly a week.
    It would be good to see some resolution here though.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although Hengistmate has now switched to edit-warring by blanking chunks of the talk: page. [35] [36] Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. It has already been protected twice without any change to the two principal protagonists behaviour in deliberately misquoting the sources to support their incorrect version. Also as Andy says, the article has been basically stable for nearly a week apart from one bit of unrelated drive by vandalism (which is par for any article). However, I would reserve the right to change my position if the two protagonists revert to their previous edit war. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because zero forms of WP:DR were employed, and there was also no permanent full-protection, only a few days at a time. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Plasticine at WP:ANEW

    4RR now, thus Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hengistmate_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And Hengistmate has the cheek to accuse me of edit warring with this edit summary in spite of the fact that I have only reverted the deleted discussion once. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:25, 28 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]
    "You haven't a clue about dispute resolution ...". Could you back up that claim with evidence, Santamoly? -- Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ho hum. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 29 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 [[38]] and obsessed [[39]]. 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: [40], [41], [42]), 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 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]

    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]
    • First, wrong noticeboard. Second, yes, you should not have restored it. The unsupported ramblings of an editor about a BLP do not belong on the talk page. Good lord, his justification starts with "According to Wikipedia".... Arkon (talk) 01:56, 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 [43] 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]
    • Additional comments & redactions added to the list above. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:02, 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]

    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]

    Persistent changing of piped links by 142.105.197.42

    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: [44], [45], [46], 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]

    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 [47]), 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 [48]) 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: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55].
    Middle list: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63].
    Bottom list: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].
    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: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. ~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: [82]. I later retrieved the thread from the archive when it was bot-archived prematurely [83] (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 [84]. 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]
    This. I looked at the last two RFCs, and Martindale participated in good faith. They were closed appropriately, and I see no edit warring by Martindale at all on either the article or its talk page. Fountains-of-Paris has used two RFCs to try to get some date headings formatted the way he wants, unsuccessfully, and now he's trying a third time. If there's no consensus, there's no consensus. I echo Softlavender's suggestion to use single threads to discuss points, single issue by single issue, instead of the RFC process. If that fails, dispute resolution is the way to go. Regardless, Martindale is not a bad actor here. Katietalk 22:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment from Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)

    This has been adequately resolved. Both users have been advised to improve their behaviors.
    (non-admin closure)
    Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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 c hanges (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. [85]. 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]
    Surely "Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me" can't be serious. "Pinging" merely amounts to mentioning a user page as a link, and signing it. I believe nobody has the right to "ban" someone from doing that. Additionally, I find the edit summaries linked as diffs WP:NPA material, and I object to the implication that the filer would be "close to harassing" by reporting personal attacks in which they're being called an idiot. It seems to me like this is a case where someone with too much "experience" on Wikipedia should adjust their expectations on how much weight that bears. LjL (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-read what I actually wrote instead of putting words in my mouth. I said "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." I did not say he was close to harassing someone. Las Vegas is closer to New York City than San Francisco is, but no one would say that Vegas is close to NYC. I also already said that the other diffs were personal attacks -- but they were the lead in for this, not the crux, and the talk page ban was brought up as if it was as serious an issue. That was what I was addressing, while also noting that the only thing actionable here was the personal attacks by BMK. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of clarification to LjL: One can mention and link another editor without pinging them by adding the parameter {{noping|. Like this: Beyond My Ken. See Template:Noping. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay Softlavender but despite this technicality, while I find it reasonable to be asked to consider someone's talk page off-limits (notices aside) as I'd be actively trying to communicate with them, being asked to do something "special" when I'm really just linking to a page on Wikipedia (usually for other editors' benefit, not in order to interact with the culprit) sounds more like a restraining order except without a judge (or arb) imposing it. Once upon a time, Wikipedia didn't have "pings" in the first place: they were just links, now those links ping people, but that should just be an additional (and optional) convenience, it really shouldn't entail additional restrictions on people. LjL (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Using NOPING is no more "special" that linking the username to begin with. Either don't link the name at all, or use NOPING. Pings, now that they exist, are a notification and an implied request for attention, and are a genuine intrusion if unwanted, superfluous, or unneeded. If you are just linking "for other editors' benefit, not in order to interact with the culprit", then you should always use NOPING. NOPING replaces the time when, as you say, "Wikipedia didn't have "pings" in the first place: they were just links". Pings are automatic and therefore "but that should just be an additional (and optional) convenience, it really shouldn't entail additional restrictions on people" doesn't apply and doesn't make sense, and that's why the NOPING template exists. If someone asks you not to ping them, don't. If someone asks you not to post on their talk page, don't. These are both valid requests on Wikipedia. I'm done here; no need to discuss further. Softlavender (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I'm going to ask you to link me to a policy or guideline corroborating your opinion on the matter; otherwise, I will feel free to ignore it (as my own opinion that pings are optional and if you're bothered by them you can disable them is just as valid as yours), and I suggest that the editor in question may do the same. LjL (talk) 15:42, 28 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]

    • BMK needs to be warned against being personally abusive with his edit summaries. These are not intended to be snarky little insult lines, they are supposed to describe the editorial changes made in each edit. Either do that or stop using them altogether. You've been around here long enough not to behave like a petulant junior high school kid and to know that personal abuse or denigration of other editors in edit summaries is not supposed to happen and is not gonna fly, no matter how frustrated you may be with the ostensibly sketchy editing of someone else. Knock it the hell off. Carrite (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Carrite. A warning will probably do, but the fact that BMK is not supposed to talk to other users that way, and that Andymii is allowed to object to it, should be acknowledged. One correction per Softlavender, though: Adding "citation needed" tags is one correct response to unsourced material. It is also perfectly acceptable to delete it, per WP:V, so long as it doesn't escalate to an edit war. xAn assessment of Andymii's own behavior may be merited, but this wouldn't figure in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Both seem to be acting foolish (and BMK's behavior shouldn't be dismissed entirely here). Double trout time? Seriously though... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Foolishly," please. We are an encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt this constitutes harassment as alleged by the OP, but I have great concerns about BMK's edit summary "my god you are a pain in the ass...". This is clearly an incivil comment. There has been much discussion recently about incivility on wikipedia and the apparent lack of action being taken by admins to counter this. BMK is the recipient of multiple blocks (the OP has received none) and is a highly experienced editor. He should know much, much better than to leave an edit summary like this. DrChrissy (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you meant "uncivil" and not "incivil". "Incivil" has fallen away as a word, and is now extremely rarely used. It is true that the state of being uncivil is "incivility", but "incivil" itself is no longer in common usage - it's just one of those quirks of English. Please strive to be more accurate in the future. Thanks, BMK (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you look at WP:Civil which repeatedly uses "incivil". Perhaps you would like to edit this policy page to your standards, and in the process, learn how to be civil to other editors.DrChrissy (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. WP:CIVIL doesn't use "incivl" even once, much less "repeatedly." If you're so far wrong on something that is this trivial and easily checked, one has reason to question what other assertions you might make. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are totally correct - it does not use "incivl" once. Why would it, this is not a word. As for checking what we write and assertions....enough said. DrChrissy (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @BMK: Do you have any comments on the issue that aren't unnecessary grammar criticisms? clpo13(talk) 00:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. ... Oh, wait, is that a comment? Have I made a paradox? BMK (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    At any rate, "incivil" has a 2,110,000 Google count, while "uncivil" only has 135,000, so aside from gratuitously irrelevant, you're likely also being wrong. LjL (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This may perhaps be news to some, but we generally use things called "reference works" to determine matters like that, not GHits. I imagine if I surveyed every video on the Internet, I'm be likely to find a vast number of them that feature cats, and a much, much smaller number that feature discussions of quantum chromodynamics, but I don't believe that tells us very much, except that people prefer to watch videos of cats rather than videos about quantum chromodynamics. It certainly doesn't tell us anything about quantum chromodynamics per se, does it? BMK (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to debate linguistic prescriptivism versus linguistic descriptivism with you here, but "incivil" is a perfectly valid word in common use including here on the English Wikipedia (though not uniformly so in all national varieties of English), and it should be evident to pretty much everyone reading here that you're just proscribing words in order to be odious towards the person using them. It doesn't impress anybody, so I suggest you give it up. I've seen you act much better than this. LjL (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite some obtuse behaviour there and here, I don't think any sanction is appropriate at this point. If I had thought that, I would have taken action against them instead of warning them and protecting the page to encourage discussion on talk. At this level, one person's incivility can be another's robust dialogue when dealing with a frustrating situation. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peacemaker67: Are you suggesting that "don't be so idiotic" and "my god you are a pain in the ass" should be classified as "robust dialogue"? DrChrissy (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why this thread is being prolonged unnecessarily. The conduct of both editors has not been optimal as has been said here exhaustively enough already; it serves as a warning to both editors which is sanction-enough at the moment. Is there agreement to close the thread on this basis? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You might not have noticed but I have just pinged Peacemaker67 regarding the characterisation of edit summaries by BMK. I think the community would be served by waiting until Peacemaker67 has replied. DrChrissy (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did notice actually, and made my comment after it; evidently I do not agree with your assessments, and I don't think any reasonable member of the community would believe that Peacemaker67 was suggesting what you said, when considering the 'characterisation' in context with the rest of his comment, and his actions prior to the matter coming here. I hope that is enough for you to realise that the answer to your question is obvious. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think DrChrissy's comment was meant to be more of an argument than an actual clarification. --Andymii (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave my actions and statement to speak for itself, per Ncmvocalist. I was referring to the need for sanction, not the clear warning that this thread has already provided. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Updating my little chart:

    ANI Flavor of the Month
    January 2016      "Bullying"
    February 2016     "Terrorism"
    March 2016         "Harassment"
    April 2016            ????

    EEng 06:07, 29 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]
    That's probably right, though a shame. The socks are obvious, this one included. JohnInDC (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked the edits in the IP range 104.243.160.0 - 104.243.170.255 over the last 6 months. There were several hundred edits which were clearly from this person (using numerous IP addresses in the range) a few edits which did not look like the same person, but which were vandalism or other unconstructive editing anyway, one edit which looked doubtful to me, and a total of three edits which were probably not from this editor and which appeared to be constructive. I decided to go ahead and place a range block, since a likely risk of less than 1% collateral damage, while undesirable, is tolerable. Of course, the editor may come back on IP addresses outside that range, as he/she may have done here, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of his/her IP editing has been from the blocked range, so it stands a good chance of hindering his/her editing significantly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation: I see that you range blocked 104.243.160.0/19. A previous narrower block of 104.243.160.0/20 seemed to be effective. The new sock popped up just as that block expired. Was there any suspected vandalism above 104.243.175.xxx? • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Jaffna Airport

    Can any Admin or Editor have a look on the discussion on the talk page above and advise whether I am wrong. In a nutshell; I am of the view Jaffna Airport should remain with Roundel not with Crest. The Editor in dispute subsequently brought the Indian Airports: Agra Airport, Allahabad Airport, Bareilly Airport, Kanpur Airport which are with "Roundel" for a demonstration to me but when it comes to Jaffna Airport, he wants it should be kept with "Crest" as it is.Pathmaraman (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a few problems with your request here. First, you've failed to present a behavioural issue with regard to another editor. Second, to the extent that you present a content dispute, your description is quite difficult to make out. From having visited the talk page, I've been able to deduce the following, however: you opened an RfC about five weeks ago to discuss the name of the article in question (or does the debate concern infobox information only?), raising the issue of whether it should be named for the airfield, the air base located there, or some combination thereof, based on sources which included aeronautical resources, google searches and other factors, as well as WP:RS/WP:COMMONNAME arguments. Although a few different editors responded, at about a month ago, only you and one other editor remained and the two of you went back and forth for some time about the proper way forward. At some point the info was changed to your preferred version. About 17 days back, he made the last comment in that unresolved discussion, to which you did not respond. Yesterday, he declared that he intends to change the content back, having received no further objection from you, and you responded, suggesting a WP:DRN resolution. Is that all more or less correct?
    If so, this does not seem a ripe issue for ANI. You two are obviously divided on the matter, but there has been no incivility that I can see, nor edit warring, nor disruption in general. I suggest you pursue the DRN filing you considered. The moderator of the discussion there will ask him if he is willing to run through the content issue and you will hopefully have a resolution through that process. If it fails, try re-listing the RfC to get more outside opinions. If a consensus decision is reached and a party violates it, and an edit war seems eminent, then you can always bring the matter back here or directly to an admin. Please remember next time, though, that you must inform a user when their behaviour is the subject of a filing on this forum. Best of luck. Snow let's rap 10:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your time and interest; I will pursue the DRN at the right time.Pathmaraman (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Until the dispute is resolved WP:STATUSQUO applies. It is up to Pathmaraman to take the issue to WP:DRN.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You should explain why you want selectively Crest over Roundel at the Jaffna Airport, if you don't I'll revert it back, I am sorry.Pathmaraman (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    Hi Pathmaraman, and thank you for bringing this to attention.* However, this is what is called in Wikipedia jargon a "content dispute". Administrators are not umpires for issues like whether the Sri Lankan Air Force roundel or the SLAF Palaly Crest should be used in that article.
    Administrators are not the umpires of "content disputes". It's OK that you've bought it here, but this isn't the place for this discussion
    Wikipedia content is based on consensus about what reliable sources say. I think you should go back to Talk:Jaffna Airport and read what other editors - including Obi2canibe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a long-time and well-respected editor - have to say about this.
    Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    * WP:AN/I is the de facto noticeboard for anything and everything. It shouldn't be. But it is.
    Thanks for your time, but I don't see his judgement anymore tally with of a long-time and well-respected editor.Pathmaraman (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    117.215.194.94 reported by Jim1138

    117.215.194.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is adding unsorced/poorly sourced content to
    Social work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The anon is changing: A person who practices social work is called a social worker.
    to this: A person who practices social work with a Bachelor's, Master's (MSW), and/or a Doctorate degree in Social Work is called a social worker. ...

    This is not supported by the anon's citation http://www.learnhowtobecome.org/social-worker/ and on the anon's talk page http://study.com/how_to_become_a_social_worker.html. Neither of which define "social worker", just something like: "How to become a social worker... get a degree"

    Merriam-Webster:social work nor dictionary.com:social work do not specify education requirements for social work.

    The classification of a "social worker" may be a legal definition in some countries.

    I have asked a number of times to give a citation specifically defining "social worker". I get a reply with the same links (above) with a NASW link specifies, you may have to search. here

    Now the anon is stating on talk:social work that I am in agreement: here Which I am not nor do I know how the anon came to the conclusion.

    Also, previously added unsourced content to Emotional self-regulation which should be wp:MEDRS on here.

    Jim1138 (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Essentially, the anon's edits to social work changes the meaning of what a social worker is which I think is invalid. Jim1138 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Jim1138, this is a content dispute that belongs on the talk page of that article(s), not here on ANI or AIV or on user talk pages or in edit summaries. Start a discussion thread on the article talk page and try to reach a resolution. If you do not reach an agreement, remind the user of WP:BRD, and use some form of WP:DR (dispute resolution). Right now you are both edit-warring non-stop, and theoretically should have both been blocked for that. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock request for 46.99

    46.99.0.0/17 blocked one month for block evasion. Katietalk 02:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have long suspected that a very disruptive dynamic IP starting on 46.99 has belonged to sockmaster Blendi111 (talk · contribs). Today a new sockpuppet Armend8 (talk · contribs), confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blendi111, recreated an article previously created by an other sock and deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drilon Hajrizi). Then 46.99.27.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) contested the deletion on article talkpage, wondering why their article where being deleted, thus confirming my suspicions.

    The disruption from this IP range includes

    • Removing AfD notices on articles ([86], [87], [88])
    • Removing maintanance tags ([89], [90], [91], [92])
    • Adding blank spaces ([93], [94], [95])
    • Adding headers without content ([96])
    • Changing nationality ([97],[98], [99])
    • Adding unsourced content ([100] just like socks, [101])
    • and much more (some articles has since been removed)....

    IPs on my watchlist (there are more out there) includes

    The IP range also always edits the same articles as the blocked sockpuppets, so I rangeblock is needed (if possible). Qed237 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's 46.99.0.0/17 - I'm not seeing very much, if any, collateral damage from that range since February 1 and not much more since January 1. It's a big range but I'm willing to block it for a month. Katietalk 18:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @KrakatoaKatie: Thanks, much appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated Muhammad-related disruptions and personal attacks despite warnings

    User Ttt74 repeatedly disrupts Muhammad-related articles (a topic under discretionary sanctions). Today, Ttt74 has changed Depictions of Muhammad four times already [102], [103], [104], [105]. This in addition to deleting images and edit warring at Muhammad [106], [107], [108] and, a few days ago, at God [109], [110], [111]. Ttt74 has received plenty of warnings about their constant disruptions from several users and admins, including Theroadislong [112], [113], Liz [114], and C.Fred [115] but the disruptions just continue despite all of these warnings. I think there's a strong case of WP:NOTHERE, absolutely nothing about all these edit wars on several sensitive articles suggests that this user is willing or able to work with others or is here to build an encyclopaedia. Jeppiz (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me be clear here: Firstly, the edits concerning Depictions of Muhammad you mentioned above cannot be an argument of your accusation. Secondly, on the edits concerning God, I didn't broke the 3RR: and I succeed to establish consensus with other editors. Your "disruption" accusation is simply inappropriate: This is a personal attack and nothing more: You really need to AGF. Ttt74 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I see a lot of edit warring that appears to be POV driven (e.g., the edit summary on this edit). In all cases, Ttt74 is the initiator of the edits (let's assume they're bold edits), but fails to follow WP:BRD and continues to revert others when their edit is undone. I don't think Ttt74 is NOTHERE (their other edits seem constructive) but it seems like they may not be able to constructively edit on this particular topic. This seems like a case that might fall under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images's discretionary sanctions. WP:AE might be a better venue if nothing comes of this discussion here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to clarify: I explained my edit at God [116] on the talk page: I did it because the image was misplaced; and after discussing, the consensus was to move the image to its right place as what I wanted. Ttt74 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no such consensus at Talk:God#Concerning_the_image_on_the_top_of_the_article though... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that no one had yet disagreed with me about the image move, is what is considered a consensus: Am I wrong? Ttt74 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be WP:SILENCE. Regardless, I strongly suggest you stop edit warring and step back from Muhammah-related pages if you think you cannot edit without being disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ttt74, I'm afraid I have no idea what your sentence beginning "Let me be clear here" means. "Firstly, the edits concerning Depictions of Muhammad you mentioned above cannot be an argument (what?) of your accusation (what?)." You are not being clear in the least. Also criticizing your edits is not a personal attack. Personal attacks are attacks against a person. As regards AGF, it seems to me that a lot of AGF has already been extended to you, but that has not stopped you from continuing to edit these sensitive articles like a bull would edit a china shop, while accusing everybody else of vandalism, incivility, etc. For instance, I see you revert Amatulic while accusing him of vandalism,[117], and, when he tells you to take care throwing around the term "vandalism" (very good advice), you revert again, telling him to "stop your incivility".[118] It's ridiculous. You have been topic banned for six months from all editing related to Muhammad. I have kept it down to six months purely because you're a new user, who may hopefully learn better; if it wasn't for that, I would have banned you indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • P.S. I'll allow you to continue to edit this ANI thread until it's closed, despite the topic ban, which otherwise applies to all discussion related to Muhammad. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
        • I had just blocked the user, but by all means, I am happy to defer to you on this issue Bishonen. Please feel free to modify my 48 hour block as you see fit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, Dennis. I banned him before you blocked — not that that means I win, but I do think a ban is best here. The duration can perhaps be discussed. I've undone the block. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen, Can you explain me what's the wrong thing I did on Depictions of Muhammad, that requires all that long-term ban? Ttt74 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not just Depictions of Muhammad. It's Muhammad too, as well as other Islam-related articles. Accusing others of "vandalism" and "incivility" when someone restores images that exist by long-standing consensus, and edit-warring (two reverts is sufficient) about this even in the face of explanations as to why such behavior isn't acceptable, suggests either WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is counterproductive. A topic ban in such instances is appropriate.
    For my part, I think you could be a good contributor here. I assumed good faith, that your problem may be English comprehension (as indicated by a box on your userpage) and that you will learn the rules over time. Some of the people with whom you have interacted have been on Wikipedia for many years and we know the policies and guidelines inside and out. I found it amusing to be accused of vandalism after 10 years as a daily Wikipedia editor with 5 of those years as an administrator. You would do well to heed the advice that has been given to you. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that made me smile too, Amatulić, you vandal. What Amatulić said, Ttt74, and I'm also concerned about the way you've responded on this board, for instance claiming baselessly that there was consensus for your image move at God. You have been disruptive not merely by edit warring on articles, but also by being unreasonable on talkpages and unreceptive to explanations and advice, and insulting with it. That wastes the time and energy of constructive volunteers and pollutes the atmosphere. But I agree with Amatulić that you could be a good contributor here, if you spend the ban time editing other topics and learning the rules and customs here. I might consider changing the ban from six to three months, depending on what people think here. What do you say, Amatulić and others? Jeppiz, you argued Ttt74 is not here to build an encyclopedia, do you stick to that? Bishonen | talk 09:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    It's true that my accusations to Amatulić of WP:VANDALISM were inappropriate. But what is the evidence of accusing me of being unreasonable on talkpages and unreceptive to explanations and advice, and insulting with it? and why those accusations applies to a ban on a specific topic? Ttt74 (talk) 09:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence? I'm afraid I'm not going to provide a list of diffs. Accusing Amatulić of vandalism was a single example out of many that I gave, and you have been clearly and many times warned about all those things on your page (for instance, here, specifically about insulting people in edit summaries, which you then went right on doing). If after all that you're really so unaware of your actions, and unaware of being told about them, it's even more concerning. If you wish to appeal the ban, the process for doing that is here. You might as well consider the first option (to ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision) as done, and try one of the others, because I won't lift the ban myself. Bishonen | talk 11:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Well, that is only regarding the misuse of the WP templates. But that has nothing to do with a ban on a specific topic; I really think that the ban is an illogical decision: given that I didn't make any edit at the Muhammad article after being warned by User:C.Fred [119]. Ttt74 (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bishonen, I would keep the ban at six months. I'm afraid nothing Ttt74 has done or said after the ban was put in place has inspired confidence or indicated that the user has taken the advice to heart. Six months seem appropriate, hopefully Ttt74 will edit constructively in other fields during that time. Jeppiz (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeppiz, Do you have any proves? Ttt74 (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ttt74, yes and they have been presented in excruciating detail both here and on your talkpage. They have been explained by Bishonen, by Amatulić and by myself over and over again. It's exactly your refusal/incapacity to take them in that convinces me that six months are needed. ¨¨¨¨
    And how "my refusal/incapacity to take those advices" is justified? do you have any proof? Ttt74 (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ttt74: Perhaps you don't understand what a topic ban is. You edited (disrupted, and behaved insultingly at) Depictions of Muhammad after CFred's warning. That's a Muhammad article. Moreover, you have now violated your topic ban by editing Muhammad. If you do it again, you will be blocked. I confess I don't understand your thought processes with regard to this ban. Didn't you read my ban notice? Bishonen | talk 13:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    "you have now violated your topic ban by editing Muhammad": I just wanted to add a template message; Sorry for not being aware of such violation. Ttt74 (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Very bad editing and behavior on (and off) the Ferdinand Marcos article page.

    I saw this notification on WP:VPM and went to investigate as an unbiased 3rd party to see if I could help. What I found was a week-long edit war both on the article itself and on the talk pages of the the article and Aniseseed[120]. I do not think I have seen such unprofessional, non-collegiate, rude and just plain childish behavior on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) in a very long time. While only one user's talk page is linked here, many editors seem to have thrown away civility on that page. Frankly I have never done an ANI report before so I am not sure of the right way to approach this but my opinion is that the article should be locked and reverted to a pre-editwar version (I suggest as far back as this revision since pretty much all the subsequent edits seem to be POV edits and undos). What you want to do about the editors is not really something I care about, that is a rancid stew of venomous personal attacks and extreme WP:ETIQ violations, including some wholesale deleting of Talkpage edits which are difficult to assume good faith about. There are literally dozens of edits in the past week and I would probably block all those editors for a few weeks just to throw ice-water on them. But I am not an Admin and that is probably a good thing. :)

    For the record, AFAIK I don't personally know these editors and I am not involved in the topic, I am just concerned that the article (and the encyclopedia) is being hurt by this matter. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like Aniseseed is a bit out-of-control for the past day and I've posted warning notices on their talk page. There is an active discussion on the article talk page which is where it should be occurring, not on user talk pages. Let's see how things play out when the editors return to editing this week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    RESPONSE TO: Very bad editing and behavior on (and off) the Ferdinand Marcos article page.

    Let us be academic and rational here. Please. Please notice that the people who edited my posts are the same people who loosely interpret the newspaper articles, which they source, and add adjectives and adverbs to malign Marcos. In other words, their sources are a repetition of newspaper articles that repeat the sources and just exchange it back and forth and then add negative adjectives and adverbs about Marcos. I am asking the Wiki community to intervene. We want Wikipedia to be reliable and substantiated, and not a place where they post TRIAL BY PUBLICITY on a repeated and perpetual basis. I know newspapers and articles are accepted sources in Wikipedia, but I am asking the community to look at the HISTORIOGRAPHY (caps for emphasis, not shouting) of the original sources of all the newspaper and journal articles and not just accept their articles with their face value. Anybody who is an anti-Marcos journalist or writer can say Marcos did this and Marcos did that, especially coming from anti-Marcos newspapers such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

    But if the Wikipedia community actually looked at the historiography of the sources used in Marcos articles, you would see that everything that Marcos allegedly stole comes from two original sources -- 1)the Presidential Commission on Good Government and, 2)the Ombudsman of the Republic of the Philippines. Both PCGG and the Ombudsman are controlled by anti-Marcos administrations in the Philippines. They then share these court cases that have NEVER (caps for emphasis, not shouting) been resolved in court and pass it off as facts to Transparency International, United Nations, and the World Bank, just to name a few. A civilian who has never been convicted in a court of law is innocent until proven guilty. I am not saying Marcos did not do anything wrong nor do I say he's a saint, but if the names of the editors here on Wikipedia were told they were thieves and then mentioned in a newspaper or CNN, it DOES NOT (emphasis) mean they are guilty of the crime. If that is not an unsubstantiated and brutal attack on a person based on trial by publicity, I don't know what is.

    We all want Wikipedia to have substantiated facts. I follow what I learned from my doctorate to understand the historiography of the sources. People do not just add adjectives and adverbs, for example "kleptocracy," just because they have a newspaper article. Where's the proof? Go back to the sources, and you only see two PRIMARY (emphasis) sources, again, 1)the Presidential Commission on Good Government and, 2)the Ombudsman of the Republic of the Philippines. Both PCGG and the Ombudsman are controlled by anti-Marcos administrations in the Philippines.

    Marcos is not a saint. He'll never be one. Nor am I trying to submit his name to the Vatican for sainthood. But for the sake of guidelines of Wikipedia, understand the historiography of the newspaper and journal articles and you will find out there is no primary source document or resolved court case to prove Marcos was or is guilty of ill-gotten wealth. Newspaper articles does not make one a thief, until one is convicted in a court of law. I am not asking the editors to change history. I am asking the Wikipedia community to be ethical and stop accusing a person who has NOT been convicted in any court of law.

    Facts from Wikipedia should not come from the tyranny of the majority. Me being outnumbered by anti-Marcos "editors" does not make them right. Just because the so-called "editors" keep pounding Wikipedia with lies, it does not mean pack mentality is the guiding principle in establishing Wikipedia articles. I can explain the historiography and provide documented proof about these articles, if and when needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniseseed (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange webpage

    (non-admin closure) Page in question deleted by Malcolmxl5. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I went to this page: Talk:Lithography and clicked on the link in this sentence: “This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.” I found: a WP page that is very inappropriate and needs to be deleted. Clockchime (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Now deleted. Thanks, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Indeed a dramatic illustration of how central to WP's operation are the article quality ratings! EEng 06:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Legal threat

    It's very broken English, but this edit by Officesquirrel LLC appears to be a legal threat. I'm also not that familiar with the username policy, but isn't this also conflict with it with "LLC" (which denotes a company name). —Farix (t | c) 20:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't tell if it's a legal threat, but a DOLT analysis indicates that it's a complaint, probably by the subject's management company, that some information being posted in the article by the IP is incorrect. Given it's a BLP, we should look at what's going on. From the look of it, the editor is trying to remove a statement that the subject isn't active anymore (which is sourced to a blogspot blog... not a good sign). In any case, this article needs a look, hopefully by someone who can do research in Japanese. Anyway, the username gives the impression of being a role account, which is prohibited. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the article needs a good once over. It is almost entirely unsourced. Perhaps stripping it down to what should be verifiable, which would pretty much be her filmography? —Farix (t | c) 22:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, possibly a legal threat but it's not very clear, and yes a username violation since Officesquirrel LLC is the name of what appears to be the artist's agency (and they have been open about that). Looking at the article, WP:BLP says we must be very firm about the use of high-quality sources in BLPs but there's not a single high-quality source on that page so another question is should we have an article on this person at all? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we're wandering outside the scope of ANI, but it doesn't require much of a detour: Hiroko Konishi is very likely to pass WP:ENTERTAINER just based on her roles in anime series. It appears that she voiced major characters in several notable series in the 90s. Verifiability is, of course, an issue... but probably one resolved easily enough by someone who can do research in Japanese. As to the complaint about the "years active" field... we can just leave it out. If she's trying to make a comeback, or has stayed active in an area of Japanese entertainment that anglophone anime fans might miss, then the "years active" is probably incorrect. But since we can't verify that she's still active, or active again, we can probably just remove the field. It strikes me as an extremely minor compromise to make, especially since we have the problem of badly sourced information on a BLP. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow, actually I need to check my eyes. I was looking back over this article and see that there's pretty clear evidence that the post on the talk page was intended as a legal threat. See the last three paragraphs of Hiroko Konishi#Life and career (permalink to current version since the paragraphs probably should be removed from the live article). It's essentially saying that she's intending to go after people who she sees as defaming her online. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another follow-up: It appears there's some history with this editor over at Japanese Wikipedia: ja:Wikipedia:コメント依頼/mohan6・CaugDm・MOR HAMADA (may be a RfC/U); ja:ノート:小西寛子#チェックユーザーの提起 (evidently a checkuser request?); ja:Wikipedia:チェックユーザー依頼/mohan6・CaugDm・Officesquirrel LLC 他 (same?). The article at Japanese Wikipedia is fully protected as well. I'm thinking we may be seeing an editing dispute from Japanese Wikipedia spilling over here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, the third and second to last paragraphs were added back in mid 2014 and the final paragraph was present before that. Quite a while. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, quite right. Has to be the one time I didn't check... Anyhow, I still think that bit about defamation lawsuits provides context in which we might better understand the comment that prompted this thread. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are correct that those are an RfC/U and CU requests. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenebrae biased in insisting John B. Poindexter be deleted

    Nothing to see here: content conflict, and a complaint brought out of the blue by a brand-new editors is...well, you know. The claim about a PR team, given that the subject is an immensely rich person who has concerns about his public image, is far from absurd, though as yet I have seen no evidence of meating or socking. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As evidenced here, this user is obsessed with deleting relevant references to make this man seem more important. He was [warned https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tenebrae&diff=707061986&oldid=707005661] [twice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tenebrae&diff=706901796&oldid=706901560], but seems to believe he (& potential sock MarnetteD) are above warning. Tenebrae is now offering up the absurd idea that Poindexter's PR team are the only ones who think he is relevant, despie Poindexter's name appearing often in mainstream media over the last month. Please advise. Ellaellaeyeyey (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ellaellaeyeyey, you have a strong point of view on this subject for an account that isn't even a day old. What account were you using when you first came in conflict with Tenebrae? You are also supposed to notify Tenebrae of this discussion and there are big red notices telling you this is necessary when you posted this complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems purely to be a content dispute that should be settled at the AfD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    USNS Lawrence H. Gianella (T-AOT-1125)

    This particular page is under attack by would be do gooders, and needs some sort of general temporary protection from anonymous edits. Unsubstantiated rumors are floating around the internet that this ship was the cause of a recent Falcon 9 launch scrub and is becoming a high traffic page for the moment. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I was wondering if someone can temporarily semi-protect USNS Lawrence H. Gianella (T-AOT-1125). Apparently the ship drifted into an exclusion zone and started a chain of events that led to the scrub of a SpaceX launch... with at least 100,000 people watching the live stream. There has already been a little bit of mild vandalism already in the few minutes since someone (somehow?) figured out what ship caused the scrub. — Gopher65talk 01:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    APIndysMissingBall

    User:APIndysMissingBall, a new account since January has been engaging in a pattern of disruptive editing about horse racing articles. While he has made some useful edits and has knowledge of the topic, he also is making a lot of inappropriate edits of unencyclopedic tone, with unverifiable content and some flat-out vandalism. He has had multiple warnings. (User has blanked his talk page to remove them) I am not sure if an indef block is needed, but eyes on his behavior and perhaps a time-limited block with increasing length if he doesn't get a clue. This is a possible returning user, but current behavior is the issue. Recent inappropriate edits include the following:

    FWIW, the username is a reference to the testicles of A.P. Indy, a racehorse, so a possible username violation too. One logged-out IP edit might be from same user, so an IP block might be needed if CU is run. Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • We're clearly being trolled, and the username itself is obvious code for "I am a troll". Indef block and WP:DENY. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SwisterTwister U5 nominations

    Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST violations currently has 110 pages. The reason for this is not that there has been a sudden spurt in use of Wikipedia as a Web host, but rather that SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has unanimously decided that all stale drafts in userspace on non-notable topics (even good-faith attempts at creating an article) constitute blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations (which is just what U5 covers).

    I suggest that SwisterTwister's last 50 or so edits be mass-reverted. This is clearly an inappropriate use of the criterion. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 08:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can you provide 5 or so specific examples? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look at their past 50 edits; you'll many more than 5 examples. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The onus is on you to make it easier. Of what I see, I don't see the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I randomly checked half a dozen or so and they were all abandoned fluff by drive-by users who haven't edited in three or more years, and do need to be cleaned out. Wikipedia server space costs money. I see no problems in the nominations, and you haven't addressed this with the user on his talk page. Suggest closing this thread with no action, as the IP fails to give even one example of a problem, even after being asked. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      "Wikipedia server space costs money" is a fallacious argument. Deletion does not remove pages from the database, it simply adds more data to it to say that it has been "deleted". BethNaught (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, it seems to me the IP's claim that SwisterTwister is doing something wrong or even problematical is incorrect. SwisterTwister is apparently following WP:STALE, apparently not violating it that I can see (except possibly interpreting "If the material is promotional, or otherwise unsuitable" too loosely), and moreover from what I've seen is ascertaining that the drafts are at least 3 to 4 years old and from clueless drive-by users that immediately left Wikipedia after a very brief attempt at messing around. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good for SwisterTwister for being productive. These are coming from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts where there are maybe 30,000 more pages to CSD as NOTAWEBHOST, Blank, Hoax etc. I can quickly add another 110 pages to the CSD list from this project and I encourage other editors to jump on the backlog too. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, there's no indication that these deletions are against policy. SwisterTwister has been doing this for weeks (I think we're in the "L"s now) with little objection. If there's a particular draft requesting to be restored, they can be requested and restored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the Swister is sometimes overreaching, nominating stuff even possibly useful, bring up examples and we can help her do better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But is U5 appropriate? I have no problems with G2, G6 or MFD, but U5 is too harsh, as it produces the deletion summary "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host", which is clearly not the case here. What we really need to do is to extend G13 to authorise these deletions, rather than trying to continually game the deletion policy by using criteria that were not created to cover this, such as G2 (not applicable in userspace), G6 (many, many users object) or U5 (clearly inappropriate). 103.6.159.86 (talk) 09:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the CSD that WP:STALE instructs people to use. Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Providing the drafts are sufficiently inappropriate to merit deletion rather than blanking I don't see a problem with the edit summary. As WP:Stale says "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion." ϢereSpielChequers 09:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mention it, perhaps SwisterTwister would do better blanking the drafts with the appropriate template (as per WP:STALE), rather than CSDing them, which would alleviate the admin burden on CSD. None of the drafts that I saw were sufficiently problematical to warrant the time, trouble, and admin burden of deletion. SwisterTwister, would you be willing to blank and template rather than CSD? Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, since these users are long long gone and were never serious or clueful in the first place, and the drafts are more or less nonsense, it does not matter that the deletion summary happens to read "blatant misuse ..." because no one is going to check back on them anyway. Also, since you are not an admin and will not be dealing with these in any way, why does this CSD situation matter to you and why did it even come to your attention? Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As you should know, it is common for non-admin editors to bring up issues at ANI that do not affect them but which they are concerned about. I think identifying a situation as a possible problem doesn't require an editor to explain how it came to their attention. Liz Read! Talk! 12:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly G13 only applies to newer drafts and G1 does not apply to userspace. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Or unilaterally someone could change U5 [127] Legacypac (talk) 09:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm unclear on what these taggings are meant to accomplish (and have been meaning to ask, but never got around to it). In particular, if this is to remove harmful content, tagging them for speedy deletion makes them much, much more visible - they weren't previously indexed by search engines, and there's a number of black-hat wikia sites that routinely bot-copy everything that shows up in CAT:CSD. —Cryptic 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting garbage like this? [128] Legacypac (talk) 10:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which isn't a U5, it's an attack page. But even if it were one of the U5 tags under debate, what would tagging it for deletion accomplish? Before, it wasn't visible outside of Wikipedia; and experienced Wikipedia users - the only people remotely likely to stumble upon it - know that it's not a content page. After tagging and deletion, content and title are visible in Google results forever if one of the wikia bots saw it. —Cryptic 10:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Cryptic is completely right. Deletion of these pages is counter productive. If you blank them, the mirror update to a copy of blank. If you delete, the mirrors lock in the last version. Also right about flagging content with CSD tags serves to raise their profile. Just blank them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. At Wikipedia, we don't need to be bothered about what the mirrors ate doing. We need to care only about what is there on Wikipedia. CSD tags on pages do not "raise their profile", in the same way that a user's profile is not raised by protection of their user page. 103.6.159.72 (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=707552159"