Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:47, 23 May 2016

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

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

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

• Rojava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 3 reverts in less than 24 hours
• Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 4 reverts in less than 24 hours

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

I see user Ferakp is cited in an edit-warring case above. I would kindly ask the Admins to look at the contributions of Ferakp (talk · contribs) closely. They are removing sourced material because it simply does not conform with his/her political agenda and definition of reliable sources. Please see the Talk page for Rojava for example. Another example for their negative behavior can be witnessed in their reverts of contributions by user @Beshogur:. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As I told admins many times before, Kurdish articles are 24/7 under attack of Arab, Turkish and Assyrian nationalists. I have had to clean almost from same users. Users Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, عمرو بن كلثوم and two other users which use random IP are clearly black washing Kurdish articles. I have used talk page in all my edits and called users to dsicuss. I have told them about unreliable sources, WP:NPOV violations, cherry picking and WP:ORIGINAL violations. They still don't use talk pages and continuously involve in POV pushing and edit war and violate WP:FAKE, WP:REALIBLE and WP:ORIGINAL. You can talk pages of all articles I have edited and neutralized, I have mentioned and explained my edits word by word, unlike those Arab users here who are not willing to even discuss. Talk pages, , , , and all other edits are mentioned in the talk page of articles. I would like to remind that the users who reported me are clearly violated all those WP:rules I have listed above. Ferakp (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to add, the user User:عمرو بن كلثوم has clearly involved in black washing, violating 6 times WP:NPOV and WP:REALIABLE despite warnings. The users is copy pasting some statements randomly to different sections. His edits: , .Ferakp (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins, in the absence of any sanctions against him/her, user Ferakp is edit warring again reverting edits in sevral pages. Please look into this. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit clearly shows the purpose and racist agenda of this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain whic part of my message was a racist? Ferakp (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

In that edit you are implying that certain editors you disagree with have a certain nationality or ethnicity, and that this nationality or ethnicity is the only reason they are making the edits and wanting to include or exclude certain content. Even if it were true (which you have no way of knowing for certain) it is not a legitimate argument to make for or against article content. You could possible make a case for that argument being used, with care, when concerning sources, but you were not doing that in the cited example. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I said that "There are at least 21 users in Misplaced Pages who are cooperating and black washing Kurdish articles. They are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians." I just said that those users are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians. I didn't say anything against their ethnicity or nationality, I said users had those nationalities. I have checked their IP addresses and edits and they really are. Read a little bit what is a racism and then what to here comment. 86.50.110.79 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Examples:

• Tell Rifaat (The source didn't say anything about a displacement of its population, in conclusion what he wrote there is partially is a lie)
• Al-Manajir (Removing without reason)
• Al-Shaddadah (Removing sourced edit without reason)
• Tell Abyad (POV-pushing)
• Kurd Mountains (Removing without reason)
• Azaz District
• Upper Mesopotamia

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

What are you proving here? Every day you annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan. Is Azaz part of Syrian Kurdistan? Is there any neutral source that backs this? By neutral, of course I don't mean Kurdish blogs or "news agencies". The name Rojava itself is a big scam. No self-respecting news agency or international organization uses it. They all refer to the area as Kurdish-controlled area or Kurdish enclaves, or a similar form. It seems there is a pro-Kurdish Canvassing in Kurdish related articles here. Users Ferkp and emranrich continue their edit warring here and are removing sourced information, simply because it goes agains their POV. Here is one example, and I am ready to name several more . Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone here will be blocked, it will be you . Reporter User:عمرو بن كلثوم is clearly an Arab nationalist. He is vandalize Kurdish articles since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerfulman11 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم::First of all, I'd be really interested, where I took part in an edit-war in your eyes and where I "annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan" every day.

What I'm proving here is for example that you claim that the Kurds displaced all Arabs from Tell Rifaat with a source that doesn't even nearly mention such a thing. You can't argue seriously that any kurdish news agency (like Rudaw or ANF) is unreliable only because they are Kurdish. Of course, Azaz is not part of the Rojava administration. But in Germany, to take another example, the Sorbs also don't have any federal state (even if Germany is a federal Republic) or any other administration and still the towns where they live have German as well as Sorbian names: Cottbus is also called Chóśebuz, Bautzen Budyšin, Weißwasser Běła Woda and so on, even if Sorbs only make up 7-12% of the population there.

Also your view that Rojava doesn't even exist is somehow ridiculous. And I can talk here only about the German press, but the name 'Rojava' is used by almost every newspaper or -agency, when they it writes about events in this area.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

@عمرو بن كلثوم: I have explained why I reverted it. You can read it here, . A consensus was reached (me and Ermanrich). Ferakp (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add one thing here. You and Ermanrich should be very careful, at least 4 of your edits violated WP:FAKE and WP:ORIGINAL. Also, you should learn more what is a reliable source and not, WP:RELIABLE.Ferakp (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin @عمرو بن كلثوم:, I don't understand why you don't block Ferakp, when dozens of other users have been blocked for the same offence here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Should not all be pov-warring warriors be treated equally?? --176.127.213.144 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ip addresses of the user:




and god knows how many other IP addresses this user has used.

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

Can you provide evidence of the sock puppetry in the form of diffs, Ferakp? The fact that someone edits from different locations is unlikely to be considered evidence of sock puppetry without them. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: They aren't from different locations. All those IPs belong to Bern(Switzerland) and Swisscom (Schweiz) AG. I will also diffs if you want, but I will add them tomorrow, since I don't have much time today.Ferakp (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Presumably they are at least from different computers (or they are dynamic). Using different IPs isn't in itself sock puppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, they are dynamic IPs. We can remove sock puppetry. Other issues remain.Ferakp (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone is trying to name me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was more 'Not Proven.' _Fortuna 04:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive Editing

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

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

See WP:STICK & WP:BOOMERANG. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

not relevant..the admins can look at the record...and it's all right there for them to see..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What you're trying to collapse is NOT "off-topic". The original poster in that section made some statements about what he thinks "God" is. That opens the discussion to anything about what "God" might be. If anything should be collapsed, it's the entire section. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

that's simply untrue..the section I'm collapsing is no way directly related to the original question and is insulting back and forth about individual religious beliefs...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The original question is also insulting to religious beliefs. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Refdesks should handle philosophy, and while normally this sort of question would fall under the category of Humanities, the OP thought it was a scientific question because he didn't really think through the hypothesis he/she was making and whether the proposed experiment was a suitable test of it. I don't think we should put topics out of bounds just because people disagree on them. Quixotic Potato has some odd ways of editing, but I haven't noticed anything requiring administrator intervention. Any issue about hatting the thread can be handled by local talk page consensus if necessary. Eventually everyone will either calm down or someone will go over a bright line, but for now there's no need for admins to get involved. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP here originally brought it up on the ref desk talk page and was told to bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

nope, not same person, obviously..but that's who you engaged inappropriately with in that thread (and which I properly tried to collapse) whereby you again and again and again in bad faith uncollapsed...68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. It doesn't really matter if you are the same person as 151.226.217.27 or not, the end result is the same. If you continue behaving like this you will keep getting blocked. It is 6 AM right now in the place your IP geolocates to. Are you in Michigan? Are you using a proxy? 151.226.217.27 is from the UK, and the people in the UK are awake already. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

If it wasn't so boring I would check when you are active, and look at the time in the location your IP geolocates to. The Rambling Man already pointed out to you that my name is "The Quixotic Potato". Just like A Tribe Called Quest and A Pimp Named Slickback. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be using the correct ENGVAR and you've claimed you went to the university of Michigan so you probably woke up really early. You've pissed quite a few people off in your short wikicareer. 5.150.93.133 has been blocked as well btw. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand you're grasping at straws and trying really, really hard to change the subject to try to distract away from what this is about, which is your inappropriate behavior (so in that sense it's just more inappropriate behavior and continued evidence of a bad Misplaced Pages attitude)..If you go reinstate the collapse and post a quick "my bad" in the talk then this thread can be ended..this will suggest you understand the inappropriateness of some of your "odd ways of editing" (which was another editor's generous way of referring to your inappropriate editing behavior)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hahahaha. That is the second time you made me laugh out loud. Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

note: I wasn't an involved party to the inappropriate/off-topic tangent the two editors went on..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your claim of it being "off-topic" is false. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

that's just a ridiculous claim..not only was it off-topic (as Wnt basically agreed in the talk page) but it was INAPPROPRIATE too (ad hominem attacks/tanuts etc etc)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It is your claim that is ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

is there any logic to rationale to your belief? do you simply think ad hominem attacks/taunts are appropriate?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Woah, you are great at making friends. Wnt is (obviously) not on your side, no one is. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

note: the quote posted by DrChrissy doesn't mention anything about being involved in tangents (off- or ontopic). You were involved in that thread. I don't think trouting you would be useful, and I don't care if you get blocked now, because your behavior clearly shows a pattern that will get you blocked over and over again unless you drastically change your behavior. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

repeating again and again that you hope I be blocked one day in the future is off-topic in itself and is disruptive to this discussion..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what the word disruptive means? Maybe you do not want to hear my advice, but I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Again, for the third time, it's "The Quixotic Potato". Do you have a problem with my username? Administrators are unlikely to do what you tell them to do; they are experienced Misplaced Pages users and they are working to protect people like me against people like Vote (X) for Change and yourself. Remember when you posted on clpo13's talkpage and clpo13 ignored you? We are trying to make an encyclopedia, and your disruptive behavior and your refusal to drop your stick is not helpful. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, he believed this was worthy of being in ANI and apparently stuck to that belief..again, this is about specific behavior of yours (which is in the record to be looked at)..your repeated nervous attempts to change the subject are not relevant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Nervous". Hahahaha. That is the third time you made me laugh out loud. Thanks again. Clpo13 is also not on your side, no one is, but it is true that this deserves to be on ANI because that makes it easier to demonstrate the pattern in your behavior in the future. Everything is accessible in the page history, even the removed posts by that banned user, that is the reason why no one is on your side. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, everything is in the record to be looked at...my hope is a good-faith admin or two will be along to do just that..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I predict that you will claim that any admin who disagrees with you is not a "good-faith admin". In reality everyone who has disagreed with you on Misplaced Pages is good-faithed afaik, but people simply get sick and tired of your behavior, and I can't blame 'em. That is why your talkpage is full of complaints, block notifications and declined unblock requests. Like I said many times before, I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. Drop your stick, stop harassing people, stop insulting people, stop wasting peoples time and stop being disruptive. If you can't do that then you are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I see another attempt to change the topic of this discussion (don't worry, I'll keep seeing them if you want to keep repeating yourself, as I'm watching this of course)...interestingly, you haven't once yet addressed what this is about, which makes sense as it's indefensible...an Admin will hopefully be along..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I did link to WP:BOOMERANG, so you can't say you haven't been warned. Quote: "There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report." I don't think you will be blocked based on this ANI discussion, but I am pretty sure that your history will be brought up the next time you behave like this, and it is quite easy to see the pattern. You keep making new enemies, and at some point people will have had enough. BTW, The Rambling Man is an admin, and The Rambling Man told you that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

boomerang just not relevant here..all of this was entirely necessitated by you simply not allowing the proper collapse in the first place...and then another editor ending the discussion on the relevant talk page due to believing it belonged here...I don't particularly make "friends" or "enemies" here as I don't view it as a social networking site...I do insist policy be consistently implemented..which, unfortunately, has caused some bother for certain people..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Whoohoooo! You learned how to indent correctly. Thank you. You don't particularly make friends here, that is true. You obviously do not understand the policies and guidelines and unwritten rules here, I cannot blame you for that because that would take you a very long time, but luckily people like you are unable to pass an RFA so you don't have to understand many of them. Here are some quotes from stuff I wrote earlier: Go do something useful, write an article. You can see my todo-list here: User:The_Quixotic_Potato/todo. If you write a decent article about Thierry Legault I will give you a barnstar. The French Misplaced Pages has an article about Thierry Legault. If you want me to I can give you some sources you can base the article on. If you do not want to write an article then maybe you can help me fix some typos? Click here for a list of possible typos. Write an article about Thierry Legault, or fix some typos, or do something else that is useful. I have already sent you a link to WP:STICK. My offer still stands, if you write a decent article about Thierry Legault then I will give you a barnstar. He is a very interesting guy, he is notable, and this could be your first barnstar ever. Are you going to write an article? Are you going to improve existing articles? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

You know that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". According to WP:DUCK you are a troll, just like your banned "friend". I am going to stop interacting with you (except maybe to mock you), because that is what Professor Elemental told me to do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

my friend? the person who was one half of the inappropriate conversation I tried to collapse (the other half being you)..excellent logic..notice his half has been properly removed whereas your against policy and silly posts remain for all to see...(anyway, it's clear to me you get the message...there may not be enough admins with enough time to deal with you right now)68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

my hundreds upon hundreds of beneficial contributions can be looked at...my collapsing of the off-topic and totally inappropriate discussion between two editors in the reference desk thread was one of these beneficial contributions..."Quixotic Potato's" disruptive behavior after I did this (which eventually necessitated this thread here) on the other hand..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you keep using quotes around his name and keep getting his name wrong is proof positive that you are not here to be civil or contribute, you are simply here to waste time. Go away before you are forced to go away. --Tarage (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

the fact that he insists again and again in a silly manner that I include "The" is more demonstration of his childish/inappropriate behavior on Misplaced Pages...what's wrong with using quotes when referring to a username? I'm still awaiting an Admin...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins have talked to you already if you cared to pay attention. This will not end well for you. That you lack even the proper respect to call someone the way they want to be called is proof of your own childishness, but you refuse to see that. I'm sure your attacks will soon turn my direction, but that's fine. You've been given enough rope. --Tarage (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

never once have I ever attacked anyone on Misplaced Pages...who is an admin that has addressed this? (Have you bothered to look into what this thread is actually about or have you only read the mostly irrelevant content contained within this thread?)68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

68.48.241.158 did attack (at least) one person, and administrator Coffee addressed this (by blocking 68.48.241.158).

21:36, 1 March 2016 Coffee (talk | contribs) blocked 68.48.241.158 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment)

68.48.241.158 will probably claim that Coffee is not a "good-faith admin". Tarage has been a Misplaced Pages user for over a decade and has a clean blocklog. It seems to be really difficult for 68.48.241.158 to find a "good-faith admin" (despite the fact that someone sent him this link which lists hundreds of them) so it is not clear how Tarage managed to avoid getting blocked all this time.</sarcasm>

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

the reasoning for that improper block was supposed "failure to get the point" in a talk page content discussion...ad admin then incorrectly listed it as "personal attack"...I immediately objected to the block and the incorrect stated reason (as can be seen) but it was not addressed...but, again, this hasabsolutely nothing to do with what this thread is about...this thread is about your specific conduct (which actually included personally attacking another user...which can all objectively be seen right in the record)..you haven't once addressed what this is about (which is understandable, as you have no defense) but disruptively changed the subject again and again (which is also inappropriate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyone you have interacted with on Misplaced Pages is wrong and you are right. The fact that the vast majority of your interactions with other people are less than pleasant is our fault. All admins are acting in bad faith. We should all be blocked, except you of course, so that you can edit Misplaced Pages in peace. We are all crazy, and we are simply not smart enough to understand you. Are you aware that MediaWiki is totally free? You can install it on your own webserver, that way you won't have to deal with idiots like me. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Did you become nervous now that you've finally realized that this ANI report has backfired in a rather spectacular way? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

there are not enough police officers to deal with every crime and there are not enough admins to deal with every infraction, simple as that (it's backfired only in how you've filled it inappropriately...be nice to see you admonished for that in itself, which would be appropriate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what the word appropriate means? You seem to be using your own definition of the word disruptive. Tarage wrote: "Go away before you are forced to go away". That is an appropriate response to someone who behaves like you do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

no, I'd say his input, including that kind of statement is also entirely inappropriate..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And your recent block for editing disruptively, was that block also inappropriate? Was that admin also not a "good-faith admin"? And is the fact that you are editing disruptively again, only 2 weeks after your most recent block for the same offense ended, appropriate or inappropriate? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

see my talk page for what I think about that block; it's all right there, clearly explained (I'm going to stop engaging with you along irrelevant lines..so I'll allow you to put in one more irrelevant post, but I won't respond, no matter what's contained in it)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note Allow me to advise collegiality and a willingness to actually listen with open ear from all parties. _Fortuna 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

a problem is that 90% of this thread can literally be deleted as being totally irrelevant to the OP/original issue..what admin wants to read through all that? I think there are just not enough admins to have attention at everything...as ideally this would have been looked at immediately and solved thereby avoiding "The Quixotic Potato's" repetitive disruption of this thread...but at this point it's largely a lost cause..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a classic "takes two to tango" situation. If people had visited this and found 20 posts from TQP and nothing else besides the first comment from you starting it, then maybe people would be concerned enough to take action. But when people visit this and find 20 back and forths between you and TQP nothing is thay likely to happen as in most similar cases at ANI. In other words, don't complain about most of this thread being totally irrelevant or disruptive when you contributed half of it. Note also that at AN//I behaviour from all editor involved in a dispute will normally be looked at. Discussion is not limited to the behaviour an OP wants us to look at. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

68.48.241.158 has been blocked. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Potguru

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

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

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

• Moves despite concerns raised on talk page.

On each page where there was any controversy I brought the issue to the talk page. On each page where I have made edits my edits are clear and precise. --Potguru (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Proposed merger because they think Draft:Marijuana (cannabis) should be the articles title.

No, the reason for the proposed merger is that cannabis(drug) and cannabis(the plant) seem to be the same issue to me. Rather than controversially move or make a change I am asking for concensus, which is what we are supposed to do on wikipedia. --Potguru (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If this is what you believe then I question your competence to edit the topic at all. -- Moxy (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, where is this coming from? We were having a perfectly meaningful conversation about the meaning of the word marijuana and now you decide to attack me personally as incompetent? --Potguru (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an attack ... a POV statement that your not knowledgeable enough to edit this topic at this point in time. I have seen to much wrong guess work at this point to believe otherwise.-- 03:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You challenged my competence and presume I am guessing at things, that is an unwelcome personal attack. --Potguru (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misleading edit summaries despite no discussion actually talking place...just a notice of intent.

You are mistaken. I called for concensus on a merge of this article back in January. Consensus was no comment for or against and so I carefully merged the pages. Then another editor came in and undid all my work without comment so I largely undid his reversions in favor of the concensus version. (And I took a great deal of effort on my merge). --Potguru (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Editing an article to one POV despite the talk they were involved in about just this fact Talk:Marijuana (word)#Continuing conversation.

My edit on this page is consistent with other articles that talk about marijuana or cannabis. There was no nefarious intent in that edit, please assume my edits are for the betterment of the readers as they are --Potguru (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edits of this nature shows a clear preferences for a term despite being told otherwise User talk:Potguru#The official name on Misplaced Pages is Cannabis

Where is the notice that the official word for marijuana on[REDACTED] is cannabis? Again, my edits are consitent with the sources. There is no 420 "cannabis holiday", it is a "marijuana holiday". If there is concensus on this issue please point me to it because I do not see where we all came to agree that every instance of marijuana should be replaced with cannabis. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like this lead me to believe they are not actually reading up on the topic....as the term is Cannabis is clearly used as seen here and in the ACT.

As I said the move was and is consistent with the content on the page. If you have sources that talk about a "cannabis policy in Colorado" please share them, otherwise we must stick to the cited references because Misplaced Pages is no place for original work. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I did show you sources....enough is enough. -- Moxy (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, where did you show me sources that talk about a cannabis policy in Colorado? You showed me the definition of industrial hemp in Colorado, is that what you are referring to? --Potguru (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Lets quote the act that has been show to you a few times now and is the topic of the article " Colorado Amendment 64- In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product. -- Moxy (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Text of amendment 64 can be found here: http://www.fcgov.com/mmj/pdf/amendment64.pdf In the text, as I have pointed out to you several times, the defintion of marijuana is: "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS, OR ITS RESIN, INCLUDING MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE. "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS, OIL, OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEED OF THE PLANT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK, OR OTHER PRODUCT. I emphasise the second sentence to highlight why marijuana is not the same as cannabis... cannabis with less than 0.03% THC is hemp and hemp is not marijuana per the above definition. --04:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok I am puzzled then...your aware both text above that the term Cannabis is used then further defined by the terms MJ and hemp.....and that the article talks about both MJ and hemp but you think its best to call it " marijuana" when its clear cannabis is being used as the parent term in the act then sub-defined? Can you explain this logic to me pls. -- Moxy (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Puzzled? Perhaps we should continue talking about this then, rather that you suggesting I be banned because you do not understand what I am saying. I have been saying the same thing for days that marijuana (per the above definition and the original 1937 definition) is a portion of the cannabis plant and the remainder is hemp. That is what most of the articles say and that is what my edits are about. --Potguru (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what to do here....looking for input. -- Moxy (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oh vey, pot guru for sure. Suggest final warning for the editor to stop the nonsense or else a topic ban from all naming suggestions. That's been really nice and assuming there's a sensible person behind the ego there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review of the prior ANI discussion, skip the warning, propose topic ban on all content related to marijuana and cannibus for six months. If the editor shows that they aren't just going to bull-in-a-china-shop elsewhere, they can go back to that topic but the prior history shows little need for patience. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be specific about the "nonsense" you are referring to. --Potguru (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest topic ban now, enough with the warnings (which are being ignored anyway). Mlpearc (open channel) 02:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please give me an example of a warning I have ignored I am unaware that I have ignored any administrators warnings. I respect[REDACTED] policy which is why I must insist that the text of articles be supported by the actual citations used not some other unknown reason. --Potguru (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not insult our intelligence here. There have been tens if not hundreds of editors on these topics for years, either you believe you have some brilliant insights about how these things should be worded and your ego needs a check or you're just an jerk who's going to push whatever they believe regardless of other people but neither of which is helpful here. If you don't see a problem, then we should just block you right now and move on. You've already wasted more of our time than is necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Strike that. Slow down and learn the proper processes here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any edits since I started responding to this and my talk thread. I learned how to take a walk a long time ago, which is why I do not edit war. --Potguru (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Too bad you struck out the nail which you hit squarely on the head. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been chewed out enough over "Admin conduct" and incivility for calling people. I'm trying to be nicer although it ruins the bluntless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban as-well ....I see no end to this other wise ....no inclination at all they will change the behavior. -- Moxy (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy I'm surprised at this post on the heals of your statement "I think you think your doing the right thing" just hours ago. Please take the time to respond to my replies above. Your call for me to be banned would only serve to end any meaningful discussion of the term marijuana vs the term cannabis which you admitted just yesterday is an important discussion that we need to have. --Potguru (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is a topic we need to talk about.....but we are having trouble moving forward because we are dealing with you and your edits all the time. --Moxy (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If it is an mportant discussion we will have it. If we require you around to discuss it, it probably isnt very important. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what you hope to gain by attacking me. Please refrain from attacking other editors or assuming the worst about their intentions. --Potguru (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree re a formal warning and if no progress a topic ban, user seems to be only interested in cannabis. I thought his attempts to merge cannabis and cannabis (drug), two enormous articles, to be spurious. he or she is better off learning the ropes of[REDACTED] before engagng controversially wth ths topic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User has updated countless articles on various topics. User authored the original "Drumpf" article which was covered by major media (later merged into another article). You are hasty in your review, you should take more time to see what I have contributed to the site because your assessment is far too narrow. Your premature ending of the merge was also hasty, you seem to have a pattern. --Potguru (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We can talk about that merge if you like. You wanted to merge a huge biology article on the genus Cannabis with an even larger article on cannabis as a drug. After six editors opposed your proposal, with not one supporting, which we call a WP:SNOWBALL result, and after I asked you why you had made such an odd merge proposal, and with no justification for doing so in your opening comments, you admitted that it was to test consensus, ie you had no reasn for making such a proposal. So I would argue that the pattern and the disruptive editing is comng from you, and the fact that you are blaming me is part of the pattern. No other editor is supporting your comments re me but a whole host of editor are complaining about your behaviour on the cannabis articles. You seem to be attacking me in order to try to divert attenton from yourself. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see where I have attacked you at all. I have made clear that I think your edits are edit warring but I made my reasoning very clear on your talk page. It is more than clear that you act in haste, as you did to revert more than a half dozen articles I carefully verified and then you (willy nilly) reverted my considered edits. Have you even looked at the cited material in any of those articles? They all refer to marijuana, not cannabis as your edits would have us believe. --Potguru (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussions for reference. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this editor has been using WikiP as a WP:FORUM since, at least, the end of March. You can see various threads beginning here Talk:Colorado Springs, Colorado#March 2016 Marijuana Industry section content dispute. This is but one of several edit summaries where they reinserted info in spite of the discussion on the talk page pointing out the problematic nature of the edits. They have had the "WikiP ropes" explained again and again. I am not sure whether they will ever understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a WP:SOAPBOX. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Above editor unreasonably removed several posts about from Colorado Springs article until same editor was forced to follow concensus. We all agreed on specific text and that text is in the Colorado Springs article today. Marijuana is a huge industry and daily news item in Colorado Springs. But we came to consensus and that is where the article stands today with a short blurb about marijuana in the culture section. --Potguru (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice job on getting it backwards. You were the one inserting items against the consensus and the short blurb is what was agreed upon my the rest of us that were commenting on that talk page. This illustrates, quite well the reason that this topic ban is now being discussed. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually what I was doing was boldly editing an article. Then you would remove what I wrote because you thought there was no place in the Colorado Springs article for any discussion of marijuana. Then I'd write something else and then you'd remove what I wrote. Then we got other editors to look at the situation and once we all came to concensus the article was updated. Since then I added this unchallenged timely . --Potguru (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No remorse, no willingness to concede to work with other editors. Editor desperately needs a timeout, especially considering past trip to ANI. Definitely has a very specific POV agenda and WP:NOTHERE I personally think 6 months is harsh, everyone deserves a second chance, but the nonsense has to end. Lipsquid (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to accept concensus, as I stated clearly above. Why should I show remorse? I do not believe I am doing anything wrong by insisting every article follow the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy. --Potguru (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think you have done anything wrong, then maybe 6 months is appropriate so you can use the time to figure out how to collaborate on Misplaced Pages. Lipsquid (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think if you study my interaction with MarnetteD on the Colorado_Springs,_Colorado article specifically you can see that I used the talk page to have a conversation with other editors and we achieved concensus, which was not what MarnetteD wanted. I think this incident demonstrated perfectly my willingness to listen, learn and consider others and concensus in my editing as I learn to work as a newbie in this complicated website. --Potguru (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would stop misrepresenting what happened. First, I wanted consensus to be reached - I have a long history of working with others in situations like this - that is why I took part in the discussion. Next, I was not the only editor to remove your problematic edits as can be seen here. Next, "after" consensus was reached you continued to ignore it with edits like this and this. Most of us work hard to achieve WP:CONSENSUS in situations like this - please do not misstate what happened then or now. MarnetteD|Talk 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOLD cannot be used as a carte blanche for POV pushing. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

These edits are not about my point of view, but about the sourced content. In each and every edit I've made "since march" I believe I have been extremely careful to make edits that follow the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy. If I have not, please show me that edit and I will immediately update it. If we all follow the same policy of making sure the articles reflect their sources and that the articles all have Misplaced Pages:Verifiability you will see my edits are all "correct". If an article says "cannabis" then the cited source must say cannabis but if the cited source says marijuana then the article body must reflect that. Unless there is some rule that we must always use cannabis in a sentence, even when such a use is wrong or unsupported by citation. --Potguru (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Far from calming down Potguru has come to my talk page accusing me of dsruptive editing, after trying to tidy upafter him and doing general linkng changes here. IMO this is just part of a pattern and that he needs to calm down or face consequences right now. He is complaning about my fixing some of his moves from cannabis to marijuana in article titles but he made those changes against consesnsus, and it is this ignoring consensus that has resulted in him being here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect you did not "tidy up", you reverted edits based on no concensus and in all articles you seem to have ignored the talk pages. As I clearly stated on your talk page I think your edits are disruptive and instead of reporting your activities here on this page I followed the policy on this page and brought the issue to your attention directly. Now tell me why did you change the text of articles without first following the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability or the Misplaced Pages:Article_titles policy? You just moved from Marijuana in Maine State to Cannabis in Maine State yet the article NEVER mentions the word cannabis, instead all the references and text clearly state "marijuana". Your moving the page makes no sense based on the article content. Please explain. --Potguru (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was at cannabis for over a year, is based off Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction and Cannabis in the United States so I'm not sure how you can say there's a consensus for your move so a reversion is fine. I'd say your attacks are not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because a low interest article sits incorrectly for some period of time does not mean, in any way, that it is "right". There are a whole series of nearly identical articles all created by the same original author all at about the same time and almost all of them use the word cannabis incorrectly based upon the cited sources. What I did is go through the sources to verify the text of the article and low and behold the article text did not match the citation. The Cannabis in Kansas state is a really good example of a bad article. I went through and changed all occuranced of cannabis to marijuana (where they were wrong) and left the one occurrence of the word cannabis alone as it was correct. Then another editor (who is really angry about the issue) came through and reverted all my well considered edits. At almost exactly this same time I moved the article to the more appropriate namespace marijuana in Kansas State. So seeing the edit, rather than start an edit war, I posted very carefully on the talk page trying to achieve concensus. Then, without contributing to that conversation, RichardWeiss moved the article back to the former namespace in what I consider an edit war. (He later commented on the talk page). --Potguru (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Potguru, yu are completely ignoring that this thread is about you. And you didnt have consensus, I checked, as is clear here too. You dont seem to be listening. You need to go and edit other topics for a while until you calm down, I am not being threatened with a topic ban. And the fact that you are so insensitive to the threat you are facing isnt a good sign. If you make a complaint here about me it will be taken as part of your campaign of bad behaviour that brought you here and an insistence on not following advice by taking a break from the issue. This thread is about getting you to calm down and you are refusing and getting more worked up instead. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"And you didnt have consensus, I checked" editors are not required to have any concensus when moving an article that is not contentious. The reason I moved the page was that, at the time, the content did not support the article title and moving it was the best way to make sense of it. " getting more worked up instead." I am not getting 'worked up' at all. I am very calmly making my case. I do wish you would revert disruptive half dozen or so namespace moves you have made without a good reason to do so and with little to no support in the body of the articles to support your . --Potguru (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Chill, man. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• You are misreading policy. You don't need consensus if it is not contentious, meaning a consensus would agree. In this case, you should have known that moving highly edited article titles is going to be contentious. If you really felt that no one would object to this radical change, then this calls your judgement into question, reinforcing the reason you need to be topic banned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Support topic ban - I'm involved so can't act administratively, but there seems to be more than few over the years that want to war over the name Marijuana vs. the proper botanical name Cannabis, and Potguru has already been given fair warning. Cannabis is a busy topic and we don't need people who can't edit collaboratively editing them. Enough is enough. I would also note that voting to NOT support the ban due to not liking topic bans in general is pretty much a non-vote. This isn't about the politics of Misplaced Pages, it is about the behavior of ONE editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note There is a significant editing interaction overlap between Potguru and HempFan. Making no judgment on that overlap. _Fortuna 11:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have filed this Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Potguru, i think there is quite a strong case. Potguru has made over 3000 edits in 4 months, which is a lot for a new user, and his early edits dont indicate a new user. Wouldnt surprise me at all if he isnt a new user. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Given their names, I wouldn't read too much into that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss and Dennis Brown: Funnily enough, it was that which encouraged me to investigate, Dennis  ;) Richard, I've commented at the SPI page. Cheers, _Fortuna 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

there is a distinctly cospiratorial 'us and them' interaction here, with borderline canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Pin _Fortuna 14:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Potguru seems to mean well, and it is quite surprising that the word "marijuana" does not appear in the lead, or almost anywhere, in the main Cannabis article, so I can see his frustration and confusion as to why some of the edits have been reversed and others do not perceive that some changes may be for the better. It seems that even direct quotes have been changed to remove the "m" word, which does seem to indicate a tilt towards accuracy on this editor's part. Potguru should take it slower, and maybe do an WP:RM at the 'Cannabis (drug)' page to create a wider discussion, which could help to explain his objections and hoped-for-additions. But a topic ban seems a bit extreme for an editor who, from indications, wants to expand reader knowledge on the subject. If everyone backs off a step, and Potguru takes his time, some of what he is concerned about may work itself out.Randy Kryn 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

However the Cannabis (drug) article does mention the word "marijuana" in the lead, and the drug article is 'hatnoted' on the plant page. Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

True, but the main Cannabis article does not although it mentions other plant-based uses and products. The point I'm making is that Potguru, too, was probably surprised at that and maybe went gung-ho in trying to add things like that in Cannabis pages. He does seem to have some good points, which is why my oppose on the topic ban (although he should be continued to be guided by the Misplaced Pages project members and not jump full-body into the changes he would like to see). Randy Kryn 14:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think he should be guided by WP project members and to follow collaboration standards and yet he blatantly says that he is right and that all other opinions on this subject are wrong and he won't stop changing article names. Then how can someone oppose a topic ban? What other choice is there if he isn't going to stop? Lipsquid (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: A topic ban for someone who's right and fighting against silly renaming of all cannabis related articles being renamed to Cannabis (insert use here), is wrong. That's why I oppose a topic ban. You have to understand that some editors, take Misplaced Pages seriously and do their best to keep other Misplaced Pages editors from ruining articles. Topic banning such editors from editing articles (or banning them altogether), is wrong, and well, it's Misplaced Pages's loss at the end of the day. HempFan (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"A topic ban for someone who's right"....and that is where I drifted off. Topic bans are not about who is right or wrong, they are about behavior that is inconsistent with a collaborative, collegiate environment. Everyone thinks they are "right", so being "right" isn't a license to behave poorly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Well if so, then the burden is on you and everyone else who want Potguru topic banned, to provide valid examples where he has been highly disruptive, because just voting yes to a topic ban doesn't count, it has to be substantiated with examples. From the little experience I've had with Potguru, he's been very collaborative, and totally unproblematic. I also oppose his topic ban for those reasons. Granted, I haven't seen much of his editing history, so it's possible I'm wrong, but from what I've seen, he's been totally professional, and that should count as far as I'm concerned. HempFan (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue at hand is about consensus, not burden. I didn't propose the topic ban, I have no burden. Each person participating has their own burden to look closely at his history or don't participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus, burden, I say potato, you say potahto... Consensus should be reached by providing valid examples, not opinion dropping based on, well, nothing? HempFan (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

This is the same problem that got us here in the first place...please read the legislation ...where is talks about Cannabis that is then sub-defined by MJ and hemp (be that right or wrong) ...why would the title only reflect one sub topic..only makes sense to use the parent term. To quote the Colorado act again In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product....the act then goes on to talk about what MJ is. its clear....Cannabis is the main term that is then sub-defined by its parts (or lets say THC levels) as MJ or hemp.-- Moxy (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, I apologize. I see your point (Well, I "saw" it with difficulty! Could you please not use the tiny letters? They are hard to read for us older folk) and have struck Cannabis policy of Colorado from my "oppose" above. An article about a "policy" is different from the articles about Kansas and Maine, to which I still object. Thank you for your courtesy and patience. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Support topic ban - For the editing habits of this user, be them right or wrong, continued disruptive editing and WP:OWN are the issues. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or Final warning. Comments here and elsewhere strongly suggest this editor is more interested in pushing an agenda than working collaboratively. Some of his science seems muddled, but that is hardly the point. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban too passionate an advocate to work collaboratively. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban User has been advocating this change since their start here. That in itself isn't a problem, but once you stop being collaborative then it's time for a ban till you can demonstrate that you will start listening to other's opinions. Valeince (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Jytdog. BMK (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban For all the reasons stated above. Editor persistently creates confusion by POV's rather than contributing anything worth while to these articles.--Aspro (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This has gone on far too long --allthefoxes 06:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversial content added by User:Escravoes

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

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

Support boomerang per fortuna.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Replies by User:Escravoes to Herman Jaka

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

To be honest, most of the content added by you has no relevance at all as an enyclopedic content. Most of your criticism addition have been reverted not just by me but other users too who see your addition as not neutral at all. I have given example of some your edits that was reverted for the same reason above. You can ask @Chipmunkdavis: on why your content was removed. Herman Jaka (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Again I asked, (as I did with @Chipmunkdavis:) - Which part of the content that I posted are , in your opinion, controversial, especially regarding Kuala Lumpur.

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

If you are really so obsessed to insert this kind of spammy city rankings . Why don't you give a try to add those too in popular cities articles such as Portland, London, Jakarta, Manila and see whether you get reverted for the same reason or not. Herman Jaka (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis and Herman Jaka rollbacks on Kuala Lumpur's Global and Regional Rankings

Section added as a new AN/I section by Escravoes, I have combined it with the above already existing section. CMD (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis had rollbacked several times my ranking of Kuala Lumpur while Herman Jaka had reverted them on several occassion and I had mentioned the incidents in their talkpages. I believed that the rankings (sourced credibily from Reuters, Tripadvisor, Huffington Post, Chapman University and several leading Malaysian news media not only helped improved the article but also provided unbiased NPOV views to the article. I would appreciate if the deletions and rollbacks by Chipmunkdavis and Herman Jaka can be looked into.Escravoes (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The article in qustions is as follows

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kuala_Lumpur&diff=next&oldid=721461804

(Note to administrators) This user have been explained here for the issues he involved. Herman Jaka (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(Note to administrators) I had replied to Herman Jaka here on his issues with my comments. Escravoes (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin comment): I've tidied up the links to the users, so they point to the userpages rather than non-existent article space articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Edited Escravoes' latest link so it points to the page he means. This is a content dispute at the moment, so probably doesn't belong here. For the record I have not used rollback here, but standard undo functions. CMD (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal refspam

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

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

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

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

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

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

updated by — Gorthian (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:TParis you were asking at WT:COI the other day about WP:SELFCITE. Here at ANI there is this case, and there is one above that was just closed with a community site-ban. Academics refspam pretty regularly, cause disruption doing it, and folks find it... upsetting. I am not sure what to do with the kind of dedicated longterm spamming described here. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't just simple refspam, e.g. the grad student / now post doc is a contributor to this book but they have used it and added their name as a reference here where the problem is that the person is NOT a contributing author to that referred section. I came to this a second time courtesy of RegentsPark who started this discussion on my talk page, and it was then that I found out that DVdm, Oshwah, and Ogress among others were already spending their time cleaning up this mess. This has happened for over three years, longer than the average lifecycle of a Misplaced Pages editor and it's wasting the time of many. Owing to the single minded devotion of the IPs, an edit filter is probably required to prevent further disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a good candidate for an edit filter. — Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, preferably a smart one, as there's 4276 ways to come up with variations of the name. - DVdm (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This sounds similar (although different subject matter) to the persistent efforts of Krantmlverma (talk · contribs), who was eventually indef'd or some such across multiple projects. Dvdm is correct re: the spelling issue - Indic articles are routinely manipulated by persistent abusers who adopt alternate spellings to continue pushing their agenda. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it definitely te case that an edit filter won't help? Doug Weller talk 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP Hopper on Social work

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

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

• On the surface, there certainly is a problem but I'm out the door. I don't know that range blocks would work, it covers a few ranges. It may require protection on the talk pages and affected articles. It is an inconvenience to other IPs, but before doing it, someone would need to look at it how much of an inconvenience and maybe a subpage for IPs, plus a month worth of semiprotection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand the ip is continuing to vandalize the talk page in a "I wish I had rollback" kindof way. Can someone at least semi? TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the protection log, this problem has continued for a long time. I've applied two months of semiprotection. If another admin believes that any meaningful negotiation is possible with the IP, they can modify or remove the semi. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: @Dennis Brown: Kindly check: this , was an attempt to solve issues following Timothyjosephwood example: base on this info:Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed. To see the other side of this others have to look into: and see:, ...etc. Above all I am not very wiki-savvy so only found this now. The previous ANI is also a conspire using similar deceptive tactics by other editors and most probable this is an off wiki tag team attack (judging by similarity in actions). Other requests of privileges are for misuse of similar nature. Deletion of disruptive content that intents to attack others or shows characteristics of manipulative and maladaptive practice could be deleted this was confirmed by administrators. So this actions were taken:, . Instituting a range block is an attack to certain region specific editors, these sort of requests should be seen as hostility rather than in good faith plus there is no pinky promise with disruptive and mal-intent editors or the editor has to show this statement. This is a wasting of time of all involved when editor who contested for this block is not open for discussions and chooses other means. Calling any editor a vandal is strictly prohibited in the article talk page still Timothyjosephwood intends to claim WP:IDHT when details are explicit in the article: about the changes made and reasoning. I request all the editors involved in this ANI Notice to check whether there are any disruptions on the basis of the information seen on this comment and links provided or a through investigation (if time allows). I hope everyone included in this will consider the ip and the registered editor in equal weight and judgement will only be based on the actions of these editors.59.89.239.32 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So yeah, this is pretty much the MO of the user. Long winded diatribes that don't really boil down to much. Perfectly able to cite multiple diffs as well as WP policy, but "oh please don't bite I'm new". Refusing to register an account while advancing an argument that any IP edit, no matter how obviously related, was someone else. They at one point got Diannaa to unprotected the page arguing that the disruptive edits were from a conference they were at (a conference of people in Kerala editing a single WP page?).

But the page for the past few months has just been a series of protections. Not sure what a more permanent solution is given the ranges of the IPs, but I have good confidence that a month semi is just going to see us back here in June. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Full disclosure: I have made significant investments in the rope industry, and stand to gain financially from this thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, what is rope industry (https://www.google.be/#q=rope+industry%2Bwikipedia%2Bpolicy), I don't see anything if it is related to the policy. But may i note one thing if Timothyjosephwood is implying from gain and from this thread for winning the consensus of other editors involved: If the actions are not of an responsible editor then warning to not disrupt and notification on the user's page of the editor's actions for the see of other editors before handing privileges is enough. Thank you.

Note:This is not forum shopping, this is just empathy for the other editor.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a tongue-in-cheek reference to WP:ROPE. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Good-one, :D 117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@59.89.239.32: You need to back off. You are working yourself into a position that could end up in a block. Take your next step very carefully. --TJH2018talk 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you for the threatening your actions are clear as the sky is blue. Others see FIMs talk page and

For anyone in any doubt as to the extent of WP:SHOPPING going on here, please see my talk page (not countining the repeated attempts to take Timothy Joseph to AN3. This is getting mildly surreal. _Fortuna 19:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Imperatrix Mundi, we were talking about your actions in removal of AN3 I added and it is similar to that of Timothy Joseph added and you were clear you don't want to talk about it: so which is surreal. After Floquenbeam statement: I am not going to involve with you same courtesy would be followed by you I hope.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@59.89.239.32 Refactoring other's comments again, I see. Perhaps a minor move, but you have been through this repeatedly, so why won't you leave other's comments alone? Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Our Kerala friend has been asked not to comment on several user's talk pages, sometimes does so anyway Diannaa example. wp:Editor integrity is applicable on many points. The IP has alienated a number of editors and seems convinced that it is their fault and not his.

Is there a way to do a range block combined with a set of articles? i.e. IPs geolocating to Kerala, India and articles relating to social work?

Barring this, can this Kerala, India IP be declared WP:NOTHERE and edits rolled back per WP:DENY without comment? All of this has been a great waste of time and frustration. Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of racism Friendly Talk Jim1138 (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Kerala is way, way too broad - it's a city of more than 33 million people. That'd be like range-blocking Canada. AusLondonder (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Now there's an idea 😉 _Fortuna 10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I do recall a recent suggestion to range block Australia. TimothyJosephWood 10:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that Kerala is too large, and Kerala *AND* social work related articles is probably not implemented. Perhaps range blocking Pathanamthitta, Kerala, India. Population 37,538. As the IP's edits often geolocate (~75%) to Pathanamthitta, blocking that range might alleviate some of the problem. Jim1138 (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

THIS COMMENT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE RAISED AGAINST TIMOTHY.It is an reply to Jim's non-relevant ANI comment. Jim1138 actions are like a wolf in sheep's clothing their intent is very clear, I normally wp:deny his case. Maybe for some its easy to look through this edit and identify which is which, i am not so-it becomes a bit confusing when answering; the comments are only given spaces to answer them clearly so where does refactoring comes in or is it an excuse to somehow pin down the ip editor. Reading Diannaa's comment states "I should have read your post more closely." from the editor itself and the conversation seems to end with civility and integrity.- so what is this soul trying to pin is unclear. There is an another ANI going on to topic ban this editor who seem to have unreal convictions about social work and engage in subsequent disruptive actions which clearly indicates WP:NOTHERE. I don't know why racism is mentioned in this Racism:Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person's social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. and the actions seems to show clearly when the editor asks to initiate a wiki-ban for Kerala is from a sense of superiority and considering others as inferior and the definition might extend to the rest of the part only jim1138 and the other editor knows what transpired there. But the definition seems to fit in some places very well and this is an antisocial behavior. I myself ask others insight when i am not sure - this is to learn, understand and collaborate if possible, and it is a positive learning behavior. This doesn't warrant for wp:deny, it warrants when edits have reached to a level of absurdity as the editor have displayed in the social work article.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is also a thing: making inappropriate comments and then disparaging their own inappropriate comments as being from someone else. Doesn't pass the duck test...i.e. another random IP from a different person engaging in discussion on user talks related to disruption on Social work.

I wasn't a part of this when it originally started, so I can't speak to that, but for my part I put a bit of effort into assuming good faith. If you are being blamed for others' disruption, register an account and clear up the whole issue, voila. This has been suggested a dozen or more times. Their persistent refusal to do something so easy says to me either 1) they are avoiding registration purposefully to sew confusion, and/or 2) they are a previously blocked user and expect their account would be quickly blocked as evasionary. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May I say that I partially concur with the Jim's nature to that of a racist and I guess it would might be right and why I too feel is explained in that comment. I am seeing blocks initiated in admin action page along with your request most of them were right like for deleting entire pages and adding silly words. injecting names in between the articles...etc. Most of this is done in a second. Mostly this also seems by having good faith with the editor who requests them, this is the loop hole you used. When such practice is present how can someone who witness' this register. But if you ask directly your question about the edits i would say it is mine or it is not. But is this the problem over social work page.-No. What is your comment on recent irrelevant shrine upgrading in the talk page. See my edit: would have stopped this childish play. If your intentions were to solve the issue and not to express your dislike to ip editors work, this wouldn't have happened. Good luck and please don't drag the real talk to something-else to distract other editors.61.0.77.81 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well timothy's abusive actions seems to flyover with co-conspiring editors discussion for block.(probably a witch hunt) I hope the work here is clearly seen by other skilled editors. If timothy's actions are considered as a good practice those in the higher ranks please inform and with a patient valid reasoning, so that i may move on with understanding to other issues. If not, move with what should be done. By looking at the protection blocks don't be misguided those were initiated by abuse of good faith with the blocking editors.-But they did solve the indifference and hostility of all the other involved registered editors. Going through the both sides the issue is clearly seen. Even you can see the new player FIM who doesnt have anything to do with this page injects themselves to avenge because earlier my ip wasnt blocked and this made the editor possibly uncomfortable and there seems similar sort of history with others claims, the problem is not with edits or the actions but origin of edits and wiki-status as an ip-editor- this is what the registered editors are communicating in one way or other. In my viewpoint this is clear violation to what[REDACTED] stands for and for the same I try to fend-off this disruptive editors.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

One may think the abuse ends here see the history and unobstructed griefer behaviors: now you know the intention behind the block.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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

That is pretty funny. It seems like these two may have previous WP experience...I wonder...TJH2018talk 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler, we've found the first documented case of Dissociative identity disorder Misplaced Pages editing. They are the same person, but they aren't. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well nobody said this two ip's are two, is there a claim as such, if so provide where the ______ are you(@ FIM and TJH2018) getting these ideas. Not from this section I am sure or is this continuation of your unchecked pranks. Plus Timothoy we might have a dispute on your actions but grow up before joining with those two disruptors...I am this kind of person (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:22), but not upto 70, keep pushing the buttons to make your actions more clear. Above all a social worker should know how to behave, especially a disciplined(army brat you say) social worker otherwise you are showing lack of basic knowledge in the practice. If your lying-its o.k.-its your deal. If you really are a social worker go back to the books....so that it wouldn't hurt your clients. If the spoiler thing was projection do dial down otherwise which school taught you PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, ASSESSMENT and above all ETHICS. I should have picked it with the roping reference. 61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: Let me give you an advice any social worker requires to be fair, stick to values and truthful this is just a piece of the bigger picture and I think if you can follow these you can be a good wikipedian too. Values in the wikipedian sense means good practice and policies. Good luck.61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us stop this silly bickering too, if the raised issue is not looked or taken action by any admins there is a good chance that this will slip through so everyone negatively involved shouldn't worry about it. If any actions taken challenge it or ask the reasoning and move on. Plus, there seems nothing to explain about the issue everything is out here-who is who and what they did and do. I hope this ANI will be included in the social work talk page for the see of other Admins and editors.61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Comment This is the fourth ANI on this matter. This is a repost of previous ANI tickets listed above.

1. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#IP-hopping, edit-warring, trolling, and_vandalism filed 3 March 2016
2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Disruptive_editing, edit-warring, and_vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India filed 2 April 2016
3. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920#IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution. filed13 April 2016

Jim1138 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sure, we can use mass rollback, but we need the IP. ;-) Katie 16:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If the IP is dynamic, what happens to the edits made under it before that particular individual operated it, and likewise, what about if he moved on to another address (which I'm guessing he probably did, as on one IP his edits stop in November 2015)? _Fortuna 16:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So I happened to be bored enough to go back and check through and I found this problem all the way back in the early 1800's and leading up to the late 1990's at least. I didn't check each and every year but I checked a pretty strong sampling maybe thirty or so. (Yeah it's a slow day at work.) The IP does appear to be dynamic so I don't know if there's an easy fix for it. Jlahnum (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed 21 instancs of this, and no new ones are showing up in a search, so perhaps they're all gone now? BMK (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed 16 instances. Hopefully, that's all! --Tribe of Tiger (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I also removed several instances (manually; not sure how many, count went I started was 102). Pretty sure they're all gone now. —F₈E₈ (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

OK, I have manually gone through every "(year) in the United States" article from 1789 to 2016 and removed all instances of the phrase and its variants; I cleaned up some anomalies at the same time. BMK (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Good work! _Fortuna 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My grateful thanks to everyone who helped on this - you're all GREAT! :-) Trey Maturin (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Questionable editing?

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

• Template:Are You Being Served?
• Template:Chris Rea
• Dave Early

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

Can you show us the discussions you've had with the user in question regarding this issue? Can you also show us prior attempts at dispute resolution such as an RFC or other method of bringing in outside voices? --Jayron32 17:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I've left posts at two article talk pages. However, in reviewing other edits by the user I wasn't sure if they warrant attention by an administrator. The two talk pages are:

• Template talk:Sade in section Removing red links from template
• Template talk:Civil Rights Memorial in section Civil Rights Memorial

In regards to using RFC or other voices, I posted this for a cursory review of edits of user on several or more articles or templates. Not one or two particular articles or templates. Thanks for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Robsinden is a longtime inveterate navbox warrior, so I'm not surprised he is now doing this. He definitely needs to stop or be forcibly stopped, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Right, first of all, I wasn't notified about this discussion. I'm not sure how anyone could miss the instructions regarding this, but there you go. It seems the op is unaware of many of our policies and guidelines. Secondly, I'm not sure how tidying up wayward navboxes in line with navbox conventions, guidelines and prior consensus earns me the title of "Navbox Warrior". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Wish there was a way your edits did not cause so many problems and so much distress.--Moxy (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the article talk page Francis Schonken just wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Endorse Softlavender's suggestion to take it to some form of dispute resolution. Mediation, third party etc. Nothing requires administrative action here - standard content dispute between two editors who dont see eye-to-eye. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tx for coming back on topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. excessive images
2. excessive lyrics

Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes does not have that problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support: Francis has a longstanding pattern of disrupting articles and doing exactly what he has done here. He baits other editors, twists people's words, and generally engages in some very serious incivility and personal attacks. He also edits against consensus, consistently inferring that anyone's view other than his is wrong. Montanabw 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose No comment on the appropriateness of some form of restriction, but because "Bach's sacred music, broadly construed" is such an awkward parameter (it's difficult to "broadly construe" such a narrow, specialized topic) this TBAN should not be logged as currently worded. It should either be "Bach's music, broadly construed", "sacred music, broadly construed" or "Bach's sacred music" (no "broadly construed"). I would be happy to withdraw this !vote if the wording is fixed appropriately or the current proposed wording can (somehow) be defended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Strict BRD

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Restricted to 1RR

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

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

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

• Support (as proposer) Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Creates a clear blue line for all editors; one that should be easy to not cross, but, one which it is easy to see when it has been. _Fortuna 15:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a reasonable rescue package. Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is a smart proposal, better than those above. It needs to be made quite clear to Francis Schonken that neither his high-handed and uncollaborative approach to editing nor his combative attitude to other editors is acceptable here, and this seems a fair way of achieving that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support what I recommended above, thank you, Voceditenore! - Francis, just today I remember that I had disagreements with Nikkimaria in the past (example: Peter Planyavsky) but now we write articles together, I had disagreements with Smerus but now we write articles together: I hope for the same with you, some day, then unrestricted. It would be another most welcome feast of joy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tx, same for me, and convinced it will work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support This proposal seems the one most likely to produce a reasonable outcome. Something is needed given that several good editors are having difficulty working with FS. Further, FS appears to endorse this proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops, no, sorry, should have been clearer. I only replied to the last thing she said. The person who should have known me better by now chose not to. I decided to concentrate on the silver lining. And off go people jumping to wrong conclusions again. Please once and for all spare me of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: In my view, harsher treatment would have been fully justified, but perhaps this moderate approach will prove effective. The edit immediately above does not give me great confidence that it will. Gerda's generosity in the circumstances is amazing. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Long overdue. Montanabw 05:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

2.25.129.11's disruptive editing

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

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

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

Removal of userpage polemics

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

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

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

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

If I was going to block WilliamJE I would have done so by now,and I reject the notion that it's OK to maintain a shrine to a grudge if nobody notices it, nor is it acceptable to respond to its removal in such a manner once it is noticed. It was replaced as a scaled-back version of what I removed in October, after a direct warning not to keep such material in userspace from three separate administrators. I agree that there's no current interaction problem between Nyttend and WilliamJE, and I hope that continues. I am, however, concerned that WilliamJE's response to what Elvey calls my "poking" is far beyond tolerable indignation: diatribes of that kind are never acceptable. Enmity of that sort needs to be brought to the community's attention to ensure that it is not repeated. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I hear you. All I'm saying is that Nyttend should not have sought a block today for a post made in November, and User:Acroterion shouldn't have entertained it. --Elvey 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

JMO, as I've interacted with both editors at various times, I must point out that preserving diffs against future repeats of behavior has, in some cases, been upheld as appropriate. That said, I think that ibans and the like between editors do lead to WP:BAITing and poking, which is why I tend to disfavor them. I do think we need a statute of limitations on ANI; if something happened in November and no one noticed until now, it is not worth noticing until there is an active case, at which time it could be an appropriate diff. But not now. Frankly, though I seldom am a fan of "they're both at fault," I do think in this case it's time to just tell both of them to drop the stick. Montanabw 01:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have little faith in interaction bans either, and both of them dropping it is something Sphilbrick and I have advocated to both editors, with some effect, I like to think. Part of my reason for bringing it up here was WilliamJE's allusion to a recent event, which I was unable to find, nor, apparently, is anyone else. Perhaps we can hope that this is the last gasp of outrage. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so we can ignore the stuff from November. Is there any excuse for the statements made on Acroterion's talk page in the last couple of days? Is there any reason to say that Acroterion is wrong in considering those comments block-worthy? It's time to stop tolerating users who accuse others of lying, and call my actions a reign of terror. Time to start enforcing NPA/CIVIL. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(nb): I'm out of town tomorrow at a project site and will be mostly off-line for 24-36 hours, so I'll have no further input. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend just above asks that we not tolerate an editor who accuses another editor of lying. He uses this and this] as his evidence. In the first one I write- "threat to get me blocked by lying to another administrator" and in the second I write "He was perfectly willing to lie to get me blocked". Let's address the second statement first. It is referring to the first not anything else about Nyttend. As for first- I write to ge me blocked by lying. What is my basis for that statement. Here it is, and Nyttend knows it, because it was in the very section of my User page he wanted me to get blocked for.

He wrote- "Your stalking of me, moreover, is not appreciated and will result in a request for sanctions, especially as you have been blocked in the past for harassing me. He is going to request I be blocked for harassing him since I had been blocked in the past for doing so. That is absolutely untrue and Nyttend knows it and he threatened to use it as the basis for me being blocked again. Orlady said here that she never said I was harassing Nyttend and then Nyttend follows up here saying- "Kindly read the first paragraph of Logical disjunction. "A or B" doesn't mean "A", and "Harassment or personal attacks" doesn't mean "Harassment",.

To sum things up Nyttend threatened to get me sanctioned for reasons he himself acknowledges to be untrue. Then he accuses me above that I said he was a liar when I didn't. I accused him of threatening me by lying. Should we be discussing Nyttend's behavior more thoroughly?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Elvey and lightly trout Nyttend for requesting a block over a 6 month old edit. Nyttend should know better. The purpose of blocks is to stop ongoing disruption and a situation that's been quiet for 6 months is not that.

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

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

• 50.0.121.79 and Elvey, please bear in mind that this wasn't merely some long-ago edit; this was content sitting on WilliamJE's userpage until twenty-seven hours ago. I only linked the six-months-ago edit as firm evidence that it had been added back intentionally by WilliamJE; it would be absurd to seek sanctions against someone for restoring problematic content if it had been restored by accident or restored by someone else. Moreover, when this thread was raised, the statement in question was still on his userpage. There's a significant difference between seeking a block for a one-time statement from months ago and seeking a block for maintaining problematic content for a period of months, especially when part of maintaining that content is ongoing disruption by means of accusations of "lying" and "reign of terror". If I'm wrong, please explain why any user might be permitted to retain this kind of content on a userpage for a period of six months. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nytend, yes, that post was there til recently but the offending edit was made in November. You're asking for two different responses: 1) revert the edit (apparently already done), and 2) block WilliamJE. It's quite possible to consider them separately. #1 is fine and has been handled. #2 is blocking over some lame invective posted 6 months ago. That's a separate matter and isn't justified given how stale it is. I'm tired now but can try to look at the background a little more tomorrow if anyone thinks that might help. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Remove the content (if it hasnt already) and enact an interaction ban. It shouldnt be a problem to Nyttend (as he is already using the correct method for dealing with someone like that, notifying an administrator) and it would prevent WilliamJE from using their page as a book of grudges. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I removed the material from WilliamJE's userpage, which is what precipitated the attack on Nyttend on my talkpage. I'm going to remove the attack there too. Consensus is plain that users can't keep stuff like that around in their userspace, and that WilliamJE is not exempt. If this happens again, community sanctions are appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Nyttend: Please don't interact with WilliamJE at all from now on. (Matches the extant "Please don't interact with Nyttend at all from now on.") --Elvey 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Struck in appropriate "Done" template: Elvey is not an admin and has no place giving orders. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins have no place giving orders either, now that you mention it. EEng 23:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend: Really? Is there any excuse? You were already offered two explanations - firstly that the two of you poked him with a very untimely block threat - but you seem unwilling to hear it. And secondly that you did say "you have been blocked in the past for harassing me" to him, even though he offers a quote that (unless fabricated) make it clear to me that what you said wasn't true. (AFAIK, this goes unacknowledged by you.) It's good that you say you're willing to drop the stick and walk away (from the November stuff, at least.) Now, please actually do drop the stick and walk away! It would be good if you recognized that you should not have claimed that that diff mentioning those other two users from November demonstrated a grudge against them then, let alone now, rather than continuing to call for sanctions. It seems WilliamJE has wisely stayed away from this thread. You would do well to do as Acroterion, Sphilbrick and I have advocated and drop it.--Elvey 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you consider your reaction if, months from now, you find that I have been since May maintaining fiercely critical comments on my userpage that disparage you for defending WilliamJE. Since you appear convinced that it's untimely to seek sanctions for maintaining such comments in userspace until the present, and convinced that I need a self-imposed interaction ban, I won't waste further time on digging up the diffs to answer your charges about edits that were made years ago, especially because edits from last November (which is much more recently than the comments you're bringing up) are too old to warrant any action. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I disagree; I think he should be left alone, and I take some blame for the result of (and already apologized for) poking him rather than leaving him alone. And I urge User:WilliamJE to remove the bulk of his reply to me. I'm glad that in his comment above he does not make an accusation of lying, but I'm not thrilled that it dredges up an old accusation of lying.

Nyttend I suggest you consider that the only reason you're not already blocked for still not dropping the stick and for this meritless "maintaining" claim .79 hs debunked may be that you're an admin; normal users are blocked for such behavior. I urge you to remove your meritless 'maintaining' attack. I suggest you consider whether your asking "Is there any excuse" was unwise. I think my response shows it was. You are digging yourself into more trouble. --Elvey 08:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected stealth canvassing / meatpuppetry

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

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

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

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

As a disinterested party- in that (I'd like to think) I get on with both Lobs and Hchc- I've got to say, I think this is a really bad idea. _Fortuna 10:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As someone uninvolved in the above-mentioned issues, and having looked them over, I must say that this request is preposterous. There are WP editors who are here to do good, encyclopedic work. And there are WP editors who are here to follow their every whim, and then generate time-wasting drama when their editing is checked. I think it's clear who's who. Eric 13:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can now address the specific matter I have raised? If you think the editing patterns I have raised are pure coincidence, say so. Otherwise let's at least make it appear that WP rules are there to be followed and sanctions applied where appropriate.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, I wouldn't have responded to your accusations if they'd been posted on my talk page. Despite the wording it does come off as quite stand-offish. You just threw out a bunch of accusations at the two users who seem to have been here a while. Even with the edits you are referencing I'm not seeing anything that is glaringly out of policy. If anything I'm seeing some WP:OWN issues from the OP. And I don't think this quite meets the standard for Stealth Canvasing. But thats just me. --Cameron11598 19:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, it's so impertinent of me to raise a matter concerning two users who "seem to have been here a while", and one of whom is an admin. - who by the way has form in stealth canvassing. He has just brought to my attention an egregious stealth canvass he made on 9 November 2013 to a fellow admin who had closed a AN/I report not to his liking. He immediately afterwards made a WP:STEALTH WP:CANVASS approach to him (here), unknown to me until now, in which he asked him (Kim Dent-Brown): "Any chance you could reword the AN/I closure to balance things up a bit?", as he has now revealed in Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury (20:14, 10 May 2016), which he characterised as "a brief conversation". Is it OK for an Admin who has been ruled against in an AN/I to surreptitiously approach the AN/I closure admin and ask for a more favourable conclusion? This he did without informing me, which seems to be stealth canvassing. But, hey, I'm just a mere junior around here. I should have got the message when one of Hchc's mates posted on his talk page "You did like check out his background before slapping this message down, right? Hchc's got 54,000 edits - including bringing Henry I of England, Stephen I of England, and John of England to FA status. He's not a sockpuppet. He started editing in 2009 for the sake of the gods." I was under the impression that all are equal here and nobody is above WP policies. If I'm wrong on that, let's shut down this request and just put it down to the naivite of a greenhorn. I've cited 5 instances of prima facie evidence for a reasonable person to suspect that something is amiss, but that's just dismissed here as "throwing out a bunch of accusations". The two parties concerned (User:Hchc2009 and User:Smalljim) seem immune from coming here and giving their explanation, so it seems? They have been notified in the proper way.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC))

I have no idea what Lobsterthemidor is talking about; if you're going accuse someone of something a) say what it is, and b) post WP:DIFFs. In any event, I have no idea where this idea "all are equal here" got started, but it's patently ridiculous. It's the Encyclopedia anyone can edit not an everyone is equal utopian fantasy. While no one is above policies, policies are gray, and long term contributors get a little more slack. Oh, and yes, WP:Backdoor canvass is a common tactic, and per policy, administrators are encouraged to consult with one another; e.g. "if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action" NE Ent 22:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Single purpose, disruptive account related to Bill Cosby

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

Do you have diffs? Sir Joseph 20:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Diffs? What do you mean?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Diff, basically you need to show the edits you are saying are disruptive. You can view page history and then get the diffs from there. Sir Joseph 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Edit-Warrior at Jim Morrison

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

Most of the Jim Morrison page is not sourced properly based on your criteria. Mary Werbelow is undisputedly Jim Morrison's girlfriend in Florida recognized by his bandmate Ray Manzarek in the quote "He was crazy about her" and Bryan Gates called Mary "The love of his life" referring to Jim. Poofdragon (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The place to discuss the relative notability, or lack thereof, of one of Jim Morrison's High School girlfriends was on the talk page of the article, where you refused to engage. Now this is about your refusal to follow Misplaced Pages policies. Butler is not a credible source, fwiw, but that's not the issue here, your edit-warring is. You've also been reported for violating WP:3RR at that noticeboard now. - CorbieV ☼ 23:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to block this WP:SPA. The disruptive editing has veered into personal attacks on WP:BLP subjects in connected articles:, along with the 3RR violations and continuing to remove sourced content to dump in google books search results that don't source the content the disruptive SPA is adding. - CorbieV ☼ 23:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Heck no, what he's posting , for example | this link you pointed to in your post above is referenced to a reliable newspaper, and he's accurately paraphrasing what's in that article, as he did in the Jim MOrrison article. I think a boomerang is due. KoshVorlon 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

1. https://books.google.com/books?id=4cuVn1VUBMEC&pg=PT106&dq=mary+werbelow+jim+morrison&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb8YP6nOfMAhWHVxoKHfIdCzQQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=mary%20werbelow%20jim%20morrison&f=false

174.23.128.98

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

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

• 174.23.186.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 174.23.146.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), obviously evading the block on 174.23.128.98, have several times removed the above report. I've blocked them, but unfortunately I think the range is a little too big to block. What do you say, Materialscientist? I've semiprotected ANI for three hours. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I went ahead and blocked 174.23.128.0/18 for a day. The range is busy, but 24 hours shouldn't cause much collateral damage. Any admin should feel free to unblock if it does come to be a problem, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks, DoRD. I couldn't decide about the /18 range, it's right on the cusp of being too big — but I think you did the right thing. The angry vandal is very busy, not just on this page. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC).

Personal attacks and other poor behavior by Thisiashan

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

• Thisisashan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Antifeminism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

This report follows directly after EvergreenFir being reported for harassment, and is a retaliatory action. If you check the timestamps this report directly follows EvergreenFir finding out she has been reported for said harassment. If you actually read these posts, there is absolutely no attempt of defamation, or otherwise personal attacks. Which is precisely why EvergreenFir is making blanket posts of pages in the stead of pointing out the quotes where accused personal attacks take place. EvergreenFir is a Gender Studies major whose personal opinion is getting in the way of maintaining a neutral point of view, and my post on Talk:Antifeminism was topical to the subject, anti-feminism. Gender and gender gap are topical, and the statements were in direct response to unsourced statements which EvergreenFir has chosen are okay simply on the basis of personal appeal. After said 'final warning', no edits have been made, which shows that this is a deliberate attempt to use the Misplaced Pages system to bully me. Please do not be a tool of harassment for this young lady who is obviously attempting to remove antifeminists who are attempting to discuss the antifeminism page, prior to editing it. If I was feckless, I would be editing the page itself and not attempting to open dialog. This has all been recorded, and this is EvergreenFir's second formally announced warning. Please do not harass me, thanks.Thisisashan (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You did not "report" me anywhere. And your edit here and here were after my final warning (and after Ian.thomson's discretionary sanction notifications). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, my posting an ANI notification is not "harassment" as you proclaim here. It's required that I notify you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been now given several chances to desist your harassment of me. You have continually committed to Libel, stalking, and contacting me against my expressed issues with said interaction. For the fifth time now, I ask that you please desist in interacting with me, it is in fact harassment. All this harassment because the facts I stated go against your bias. I'm new, but at least I understand NPOV, and the fact when someone asks you to stop approaching them, it is harassment to do so. Again, stop harassing me.Thisisashan (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You accuse me of libel. I insist you show me where. Accusations of a crime like that are unacceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

So is lying, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Thisisashan&diff=721164108&oldid=721156967 is clearly timestamped 2:36. Which is my last edit. Your time-stamp for your final warning? 2:48. So no, my edits were not after your final warning. This is a blatant lie, and written out, it is libel.

FURTHERMORE according to WP:Legal threats, "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat.".

Lastly, claiming that I have made personal attacks, when i have not is libel. You seem to be on a roll regards to libel, keep it up.Thisisashan (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My warning - - 02:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your first post-warning comment - - 02:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your second post-warning comment - - 02:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Try again? Also go read WP:NPA? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You specifically stated, "were after my final warning". Not your first warning, which is irrelevant due to it being the first warning I have ever received on wikipedia. Not your second warning, which again is irrelevant as it is not the warning in question. Your final warning. You are attempting to shift goalposts, as if your statement was about your original two warnings, which it never was. This is a fallacious move, and dishonest. Furthermore, just because the information provided is disputed, does not mean you are automatically correct. I have halted my actions until dispute resolution works out.

Meanwhile you should try reading WP:NPA, as obviously, it is about attacks directed at someone personally. Thus the term, personal attacks. I have made no such attacks against anyone on the Antifeminism talk page, which is exactly why you cannot quote a personal attack from that excerpt.Thisisashan (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what part of "final warning" in was unclear. Notifications of ANI postings are not warnings... they're notifications? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what part of 1:06 you have difficulty understanding that it came before your last warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Antifeminism&diff=721144323&oldid=721120167 My last edit, 1:06. We can all see the time, written out clearly. 1:06. Your buddy Acroterions warning? 01:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Your warning? 02:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC).

Please desist with the attempted defamation, we all make mistakes, but it is clear that you are attempting to snuff out anyone that opposes your viewpoints in the anti-feminism Entry. You are using this as a means to claim ownership. And you are being dishonest to do so.Thisisashan (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion is my buddy? 先輩が大好き！ Joking aside, NPA and all policies of[REDACTED] apply to all pages, including your talk page. Which is why the two diffs I linked above are ones you made after my final warning... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• This user is rather glaringly WP:NOTHERE and probably needs to be shown the door I think. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Have to politely disagree with this, I am here specifically to work on mens rights issues. Feminists rallying against an antifeminist for posting information in the antifeminist discussion page is anti-intellectual at best. What is being shown here is in fact WP:NOTHERE, but not by my accord. Silencing opposition is never a valid approach to academic works.Thisisashan (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A soapbox is a raised platform, for which I have made no attempts at. However, the attempts of feminists to silence an antifeminist who is discussing antifeminism, is exactly that. You are attempting to give feminists a soapbox to stand upon, from where they can denounce all non-feminists, even when talking about their own issues. You should remove your own soapbox before looking down at me and denouncing my attempts to have a polite discussion.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• This much drama after 31 edits ??!! Yeah, just cut to the chase and indef for NOTHERE. Jbh 04:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note also: "If this harassment continues, I will take legal actions. Consider this your second warning Ian.thomson. EvergreenFir, this is your final formal legal warning." -- Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, which was something I was unaware about. Is this what Misplaced Pages is all about? Bullying people who are unfamiliar with rules which attempt to stagnate harassment laws? All for what, to shut out the opinions of a professor who is attempting to have a polite discussions.Thisisashan (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Funny how that reply is also a legal threat: "rules which attempt to stagnate harassment laws". Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Pointing out policies which go against laws (unsuccessfully, private businesses cannot subvert laws, that takes a legal waiver), is not a threat of legal action. It is simply pointing out that a policy attempts to undermine the standard actions in the justice system.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You went onto a public website and acted outside of its policies. When those policies were explained for you, you screamed "harassment! libel!" and tried to play the victim card. Your "polite" discussion consisted of accusing the website of being run by a cabal bent on hiding some supposed truth that you failed to provide adequate sources for (something a professor should know how to do and would understand the importance of). You are not the victim of harassment here, you are just refusing to own up to your own mistakes. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, my polite discussion consisted of several facts that feminists don't want to see on the antifeminist page, which are directly in line with antifeminist viewpoints. You are attempt to shift the scope of my polite discussion away from the discussion itself, and to this dispute. This dispute is not my contribution, my post on antifeminism was. The bullying here is obvious and blatant.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Donner60 keeps on removing source.

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

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

Unverified Twitter accounts are not consider reliable sources. This really belongs over on AN3 given the number of times you reverted... And Donner60 was not notified of this ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @EvergreenFir:. That is the point of my reverts. Content change based on a twitter post, not what was apparently on the show or stated in a reliable, verifiable source about the show. If this had been brought to my talk page, I would have given a more explicit reply than the template delivered. In the alternative, I would have acknowledged a mistake if I had made one. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Timothy Leary

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

I have to note in addition that the IP is very likely AcidRock67 editing while logged out. AcidRock67 modified a comment made by the IP here, which along with the similarity of general behavior strongly suggests it is the same person. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty telling. Also, it's abuse of multiple accounts. Needs a block(s). Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

FKC has turned both Timothy Leary and Aldous Huxley into WP:BATTLEGROUNDS over the question of whether these individuals where philosophers. In the last couple months, he's made more trips to drama boards than most of us make in a decade. Yes, AcidRock67 is a newbie, a fact FKC likes to take advantage of by edit-warring (e.g., just the latest, , ) with him until he makes a mistake that can be reported, by repeatedly requesting the articles be protected, locking AC67 out of the article, and by intransigently asserting arguments that amount to little more than personal opinion, e.g., his opinion that an individual can only be a philosopher by occupation if one is employed as a philosopher. (It seems to me it should enough to occupy your time as such.) Realistically, FKC is very difficult to get along with and his behavior, turning everything into a battle and then tattle-taling constantly at one drama board after another, is a huge part of the problem. FKC knows the rules and he's using them as a weapon to eliminate a new editor with an opposing view. What he should do is seek common ground, compromise or genuine consensus. Yes, AcidRock67 is making mistakes, lots of them. But he's a newbie and he's being provoked into making those mistakes. This is a case where it takes and has ALWAYS taken two for a fight. Personally, what I recommend is that FKC take a time out from both these articles for a few months and I bet every problem with AcidRock67 will simply end. Msnicki (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment from completely uninvolved editor: That may be so, but it seems like a separate issue. If AcidRock67 is still socking/block-evading with IPs, after he was recently blocked for doing so and now knows better, then he should be very strictly sanctioned. Socking is a very serious violation and must be sanctioned. If there are unrelated IPs disrupting the talk page, those need to be somehow dealt with too. Anyone who really wants to edit Misplaced Pages can register an account if need be. In terms of FKC's disruptions, if they are really problematical perhaps a completely separate thread is in order, and perhaps an at-least temporary topic ban could be proposed. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Msnicki, I have not. In the case of Timothy Leary, an Rfc is still in process (so far as I know), and I have not made any edits related to the issue of Leary being a philosopher or not in quite a long time now. The issue at Aldous Huxley is not over whether Huxley was a philosopher but whether "philosopher" was his occupation, as I've patiently pointed out several times. It ought to be a simple distinction. None of this actually has anything to do with AcidRock67's apparent use of IP addresses to disrupt Talk:Timothy Leary and make insulting comments about me that have no relationship whatsoever to improving the article. It would be a good idea to not make excuses for disruptive users who do not care about Misplaced Pages's rules and have no intent of following them: and "FKC made me do it", is a pretty poor excuse for any form of bad behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Msnicki's complaints about me essentially boil down to "I don't like you." My response is that whether editors like each other or not is neither here nor there. Editors do not have to like each other per se; they do have to make an effort to follow the site's rules, however. Again, despite what Msnicki claimed, there is no edit warring over Leary being a philosopher or not going on at Timothy Leary; rather, there is an ongoing RfC. There is, again, a somewhat exasperated ongoing discussion at the Aldous Huxley talk page, rather than continued reverts at the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• The account and the IP 2605:A000:1200:E013:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B have been blocked for two weeks. Please let me know if you should see a related-looking IP continuing the same disruption, because the range can be blocked if required. (Perhaps surprisingly, it's actually easier with IPv6.) Bishonen | talk 09:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC).
• I don't see any evidence of socking or block evasin on AcidRock67/IP2605's part. AcidRock67 was blocked for 24h on May 15 but that block had expired at the time of this incident, so there was no block evasion. The person then returned to editing without logging in, but with no attempt at deception or using multiple accounts afaict. I haven't looked more deeply than that but if AcidRock67 is an actual newbie then we should remember WP:BITE. Misplaced Pages's customs are quite different from other places on the internet and we're supposed to allow some room for acclimation when someone arrives here. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • AcidRock67 might not have been guilty of block evasion, but if he is the same user as the IP, then he appears to be guilty of logging out so that he could make disruptive edits without having them linked to his account. The IP might not have claimed to be a different person, but it did not admit to being AcidRock67 either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubious edits of Jürgen Klinsmann1990

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

• )))--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Alexander Babakov: Babakov holds a PhD (1988) in Economics from Moscow State University.

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

References

1. Александр Бабаков остается верен партии «Справедливая Россия», «Коммерсант FM», 21.07.2011.

• And why did You decide that these sources are not worthy? You know Russian language? In my opinion, You are mistaken. Previously I had no such problems, I'm not the first day in Misplaced Pages.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • These sources are worthy but thy do not say what[REDACTED] article says. You had no problems because nobody looked in detail. My Russian no problem, but your reading comprehension and refusal to admit mistakes are problems. If nobody here gives a fuck about you behavior, I am abandoning the issue. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, all the rest of the idiots, of course.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Just a thought... Seems like there might be a language barrier problem has someone tried to ping a user that knows Russian and English to maybe explain the issue? --Cameron11598 22:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Please explain what is unclear to you. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• On an unrelated note, is the username Jürgen Klinsmann1990 compliant with WP:IMPERSONATE? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible AfC review scam?

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

At AfC we intermittently hear about scams targeting editors whose drafts have been declined. They have been less frequent since June 2015, when we added to several places the notice, "Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page." There was another incident a few weeks ago, however. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. I suspect this is the latest strategy used by the Orangemoody clan who have previously operated through AfC, although in a slightly different way (for more details on their past modus operandi see Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody). I also wonder how many more times this is occurring and never mentioned. Many editors never get as far as the AFC Help Desk where the instance noted by Worldbruce occurred. There is a special OTRS address for editors who have been approached with these "offers" to get help or report the offer: info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org. There are notices warning editors about the scam at the top Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation and the Articles for Creation Help Desk, but the warning needs to be more widely disseminated. I personally think it should also appear as a prominent edit notice whenever anyone creates a draft and on the first page of the Article wizard and at the top of Misplaced Pages:Your first article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. I had read about that scam, including in the Guardian, but not in much detail so was unaware that there was an AfC connection. I have suggested that our Teahouse guest forward the e-mail to that address. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A pic of himself, on his bike. Pedantic much? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 says that no non-free images may be used in the user talk namespace. This includes non-free images of the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the issue with the first one? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The first diff was to show he was warned. BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Templating a long-standing user as if he were a newbie is not the wisest approach. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

JzG is unambiguously in the wrong and the image should be removed from his user talk page. BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And the OP is unambiguously in the wrong for violating Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars. If you treat an established editor like a jerk, you can expect to be treated the same way. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

DTTR is an essay, not a policy with legal considerations. I'm not contesting that Stefan handles these matters in the most delicate way and I have criticised him for his methods in the past. But JzG is still wrong. BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. You're talking here about "legal considerations", and below you're saying it's not about legalities. Also, the OP was screwing around with the subject's talk page, which is likewise not collegial behavior. Maybe the OP should be put on ice for a while to think about things. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:USER#Non-free images: Non-free images found on user talk pages) will be removed without warning. Unfortunately, I seem to be more or less the only one fixing WP:NFCC#9 violations, and it would need more users in the area if we also want warnings to users. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to do this work. If you don't like the work (which your attitude suggests), maybe you could switch your focus to something else that needs work. Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Seems overly pedantic since the photo is in use at Velo Vision. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, the OP here tagged an 11-year-old picture File:Triplet-empty.jpg which the subject of the complaint says he took himself. Is OP's hassling of JzG a recent phenomenon, or do they have some history? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Naa Stefan does lots of work enforcing NFCC regs (sometimes I think the only person). The first picture (just the bike) *was* marked incorrectly so I suspect it flagged up. That has now been fixed. The second picture technically violates NFCC 9, but given its in use as NF pic on an article, it seems unlikely any attempt to take legal action over its use (the primary reason for the NFCC regs) at JzG's talkpage would get anywhere, and overly strict enforcement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not about whether we would get sued. It's about principles: we are a free encyclopaedia. We only use non-free content for limited uses when it has in particular an important educational purpose. Talk page chat is not that. BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
        • What the OP needed to do, instead of being a jerk, is to ask the admin to put a colon after the two left square brackets. Templating an admin over a 10 year old magazine cover, and having ignored your advice in the past, suggests the OP ought to find something else to do. Such as reading about what happened to Betacommand, who behaved in a similar way. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't Betacommand. The OP has had a registered account since 2006. --Jayron32 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't rule out it being a sleeper account. No way to test for it technically, so behavior is all we have to go on. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. You would more likely be a sleeper account for me. I could explain how patently ridiculous it is that one could think this was Betacommand based on the edit history (not taking into account the behavior, which has a similar intersection of abuse and image copyright compulsion). But no, there's simply no way. Betacommand, for all his foibles, never planned to be banned, and didn't create clean sleeper accounts he kept using continuously for six years in parallel to his main account on the off chance someone would eventually ban him. Just no. --Jayron32 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, fine. Then what is it about that (voluntary) job that seems to bring out the worst in those doing that work? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If he's actually in the thing, wouldn't that be grounds for free use? Just out of curiosity. _Fortuna 12:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, subjects of photographs almost never have any copyright or usage rights. (To do that they usually have to have some sort of contract with the photographer) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There was me looking for an excuse to bin the wedding photos! _Fortuna 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Check your wedding photo contract. Wedding photos are one of the exceptions as they are generally work-for-hire. The current standard is for the photographer to retain copyright for a set period of time at which point it either reverts to the subject or they (subject) gain unlimited usage/repro rights. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's a picture of me, riding my bike, a bikethat people commented on on my talk page, with my son on the rear seat, taken by Peter Eland, then-editor of Velo Vision at a meet at Salt Aire, and supplied to me by Peter at my request. I put it on my talk page as part of the ephemeral discussion about the image. Frankly, I found Stefan's actions here to be little short of trolling. This is indeed a perfect example of the way Misplaced Pages policies can be actively hostile even to people who have been here a long time. And we keep changing the rules and demanding new shrubberies. File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg was released to me entirely properly, ten years later I am told I must now submit the email to OTRS, but I no longer have the email because I don't keep absolutely every email I ever received, so it's deleted. No wonder people leave. Commons is worse. Somebody tried to nuke commons:File:Gallery 15233 2536 180213.jpg because they didn't spot that my name (which I state openly) matches the name of the uploader on another site where I also shared it. Yes, I know the copyright rules are there for a reason, but FFS we really do go out of our way to make it as difficult as possible to keep anything uploaded, however unambiguous the permissions might be. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you might mean Saltaire in West Yorkshire? My stomping ground as a teenager.DrChrissy 15:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If you delete your evidence that you have permission, then your ability to use the image depends entirely on the copyright holder as courts tend to rule in favour of the copyright holder if the licensee can't prove that he has permission to use the image. In the case of File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg, also see c:COM:GOF - this was uploaded before 8 January 2006 according to the logs. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Excessively legalistic interpretation of the rules based on a hypothetical challenge that will not happen because the release was provided. Ditto with the bike: just because you don't know the identity of the rights owner doesn't mean that I don't, as the uploader. Excessively legalistic interpretation of rules that constantly ratchet towards an achievable asymptote comes across as arbitrary demands for shrubberies. And your response here indicates that either you don't care or (worse) it's deliberate. I am done with you. I never want to interact with you again, ever. That puts you on a list of about three people in my entire ten year history on Misplaced Pages. Think about that for a moment. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Guy: Do you think Peter Eland would agree to freely license the picture? Since he took the photo, I am assuming he is the original copyright holder. If he agreed to do that, then it would not be subject to the NFCC. Otherwise, I do not see any way to write a valid non-free use rationale for the usage on your talk page which is something required by WP:NFCC#10c. As pointed out the file is currently being used in the Velo Vision article, and it does have a rationale for that particular usage. That stub, however, has been tagged with ref improve since 2009. If by chance it is someday deleted, the justification for the non-free usage of the file will be gone, which means it will probably be deleted per WP:F5. As a freely licensed file, on the other hand, it could stay on your user talk page for as long as you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admins are expected to follow policy, in particular when the specific policy is mentioned in the edit summary, but I guess it could have been handled in a better way... --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Stefan2 in the real world, you pick your battles. Dealing with other editors in Misplaced Pages is the real world. Do you understand that doing stuff like this squanders your credibility in the community? Are you hearing what people are saying to you in this thread? Those are real questions... please do answer. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fwiw Guy seems to know the person who runs the magazine. His edit note here when he removed the first warning that Stefan placed says: "My talk page, my bike, me riding it. Ask Peter Eland if you want evidence of permission for this". (see Velo Vision for who Peter Eland is.) The legal risks to WP are nothing here. This is drama that wastes everyone's time and accomplishes precisely nothing. A little IAR in this particular situation would have been the clueful thing to do. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it possible that the OP is a long-standing sleeper account of Betacommand? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Files with {{non-free with permission}} may not be used on user pagesas they are non-free. --Stefan2 (talk)
    • What part of that rule permits you to treat the user like a jerk? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Just my two cents, but the policy seems pretty straightforward. Maybe it should be changed, and that's a fine discussion to have, but as it stands, it seems like a pretty clear violation. Stephan could probably use a little more tact, which is also a fine discussion to have, but is a bit of a separate issue. Overall, it seems like the "they're an admin" or "I know the guy" arguments as defenses are pretty wobbly precedents to set. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It's hard to believe that of all the brazillions of images in Misplaced Pages, that this ten year old magazine cover is the worst offender. The OP here needs to stop behaving like Betacommand, or he's liable to be likewise banished from Misplaced Pages. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure whether or not it is the worst offender is particularly relevant. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
            • So, is it a personal vendetta? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
              • No idea. But I do think a boomerang and whether the image should be on a talk page are separate issues. And on that note, I'm going to try to do something productive. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
                • The question is, is the image free to use. Simple as that. The answer is no, it's not so it should not be on the page, regardless if the user knows the person or is an admin. If the user knows the person, then get a waiver or something. But whether we agree with it or not, we, and admins especially, need to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. Sir Joseph 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Actually, Bugs, when I used to do NFCC#9 cleanup many moons ago (and it is indeed a thankless task, and errors are certainly not limited to newbie editors either), I had a script which produced a report of all the non-free images outside articlespace. I presume Stefan is using the same sort of thing, so it is unlikely to be a personal vendetta. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

                Would you have treated the editor the way the OP has done? I rather doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

                • Correct. I use quarry:query/1203 to find these files, and this magazine cover showed up in that list. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes, Stefan you are technically correct.
2. No, Stefan the way you went about dealing with this is not acceptable. A comment out, then a template to a 10 year veteran, then straight to AN/I is not the way to deal with things.
3. Yes Stefan no non-free images should be used on talk pages.
4. No Stefan, there is no conceivable real-world implication of this picture appearing there, so AN/I really isn't the place for this.
5. Yes Stefan it would be nicer to see more people involved in dealing with fair-use on WP
6. No Stefan, people are not going to be attracted to this thankless task when they see how bureaucratic other editors can be about these things.

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

• Stefan's extremism about images has been a problem for a long time. A low point was his nomination of File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg for deletion the day after I uploaded it to Commons. He argued that Category:Auschwitz Album (see Auschwitz Album), of which this image is part, ought to be deleted because: "the United States copyright holder is the SS employee who took the image, or, should the employee be dead, the heirs of this SS employee." See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg. This is exactly how Betacommand behaved. It wastes a lot of volunteer time. SarahSV 14:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Betacommand often acted like a jerk, but the thing about him that really used to annoy the people that he came into conflict with was that, 95% of the time, he was right and they were wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Black Kite, "right" according only to the most extreme interpretation of the non-free policy. It wastes a lot of time and he does seem to hound people. Whether it really is targeted hounding, or whether he's doing the same to lots of people, I can't tell, but it's depressing to have to spend time addressing positions that lack all common sense. SarahSV 14:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• In Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg, the error was that the uploader hadn't provided evidence that the copyright had expired in both the United States and a source country. Necessary (but not in themselves sufficient) conditions for this are that a) the photo has been published somewhere with consent from the photographer (as there is no situation under c:COM:HIRTLE where an unpublished German work from the 1940s can be in the public domain in the United States), and b) the photo hasn't bee published with consent from the photographer (as the photograph otherwise would hit the 70 years from publication rule in {{Anonymous-EU}} instead of the 70 years from creation rule, and the photo remained unknown to the public for several years). Since the uploader hadn't proven that a) and b) both were true, the file was nominated for deletion. But I'm not sure why you are bringing this up here. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

The problem that a lot of editors forget is that NFC is as critical to maintain as BLP, in the eyes of the WMF; it, BLP, and copyvios are the only content policies that have WMF mandates. There are lots of grey areas of where NFC can be used, yes, but there are also a lot of bright lines that must be met as well, and we're supposed to deal with NFC that fall over those bright lines rigorously per the WMF. We need to be 100% sure on copyright ownership before declaring what might be a non-free image as uncopyrightable or PD, and so in a situation like the above, Stefan has every right to question the nature of the copyright chain of custody. They might be wrong, sure, and appear to have been wrong in this case, but as long as they drop the stick w.r.t. that set of images, that's how we should be treating such material. This is not how BetaCommand acted, so the implications that Stefan is BetaCommand are completely unfounded. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Masem, these extremist positions about NFC are very damaging – to the policy and to the community. But I note that the extremism doesn't extend to preventing the objectification of women. You recently supported a featured-article candidate that contained a non-free image of a naked woman, one that I would say clearly violates the non-free content policy. But the Auschwitz Album must go, and an old image of a bike on a user page is an outrage. SarahSV 14:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Except as long as a credible enough reason is provided, non-free images can be used in articles. The Auschwitz album and the bike image are, as policy is written, not valid uses. The US is clear on how it applies copyright. I disagree with Stefan's *enforcement* of the policy in this (and I would have in the Auschwitz case too) but as per the written policy they are invalid. IAR can be waved for Auschwitz as the collection of photos clearly enhances the project and no one is *ever* going to raise a copyright claim on behalf of an unnamed SS concentration camp guard. Likewise JzG's close acquaintance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is unambiguously clear from policy that files need a source. Special:PermanentLink/24983809 reveals that the copyright holder releases the file to the public domain, but it doesn't say who the copyright holder is, so there is no way to verify this claim. Such files need to be discovered as soon as possible: if you wait a few years, then the uploader may have left the project, and then it is no longer possible to ask the uploader for clarification. It's a bit unfortunate that it took ten and a half year to spot this, but luckily the uploader was still around, so he was able to clarify this. If the file had been around for another ten years without being fixed, then there's a risk that the file might never have been fixable, if the uploader no longer is around at that time. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, what? I never commented anything about the nature of the image (or the article itself) outside of whether the image met NFCC or not, so to claim that my view doesn't extend to "preventing the objectification of women" is a personnel attack and absolutely unwarranted. NFC is NFC, there are a number of bright lines that have to be met to use such images, and assuring that an image that might be non-free is not presented as free is very much one of those bright lines. Yes, ultimately it was shown that the Auschwitz images are claimed by other authorities to be in the PD, so that matter is settled, but at the time Stefan nominated them, there was a fair question as to their nature. What Stefan did is what anyone should be expected to do if they see a free image that might actually be non-free. (At commons, the only way is via deletion; here en.wiki, we now use FFD to review such images). --MASEM (t) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

TIL nudity is sexist. TimothyJosephWood 15:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Masem & User:Slimvirgin, which article and image are you talking about? I normally do not follow discussions about featured articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5 though details on this are otherwise way off track for this matter. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• God damn it, this was not an ANI matter. If JzG was indeed intransigent on this cosmically minor matter, Stefan should have just taken it up quietly with some admin. What an incredible waste of time this has been -- time which could have been spent productively.

Stefan's officious attitude is indeed offensive and a problem. In my one interaction with him I was driven almost mad by the templating, answers-which-didn't-answer-the-question, and refusal to engage what I was saying WP:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_4#File:WugTest_NowThereIsAnotherOne_FairUseOnly.jpg. Finally someone else came along and resolved the problem in an instant by pointing to the right policy, and answering the question asked. EEng 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:EEng, sorry if I didn't properly explain what the guidelines say at that time. When I get mad at something, I guess I sometimes escalate things a bit too much and don't think of what the best solution would be. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Stefan demonstrating poor judgement in resolving issues and templating can be seen in these three posts to me. Each is about an orphaned non-free image. Each file names the academic journal to which it relates (as an image of the cover). Each had a proper non-free rationale. In each case, all that was needed was reversion of explained removal of the image, which should have been obvious. Instead of fixing the problem, Stefan simply dumps a template on my page for me to fix the problem. The value of an editor doing such work rather than a bot is that an editor has a brain and can exercise judgement. Sadly, whenever I see Stefan, I think of cases where information is clearly available but in the wrong form or simple problems which could have been quickly solved. Stefan, JzG is not following policy, but that doesn't put you in the right here. EdChem (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A serious issue is attitude, which unfortunately is still something of fallout from BetaCommand from ~2009. There are presently over 0.5 million non-free images on en.wiki. There are about a dozen editors that actively maintain NFC, in light of the fact that after the falling out of the BetaCommand case, editors tend to give little fair treatment of those actually enforcing NFC. It's a vastly unappreciated job but one critical to the en.wiki and WMF mission, and the taint of the fallout of the BetaCommand situation has caused many editors to avoid admining that area to avoid getting being treated as if they were BetaCommand. As such, most of these admins in NFC do run their adminstration mechanically, using templates messages and the like, because that seems to be the only way to get through to most other users, while of course templating circularly leads to the resentment towards NFC and admins that handle that. While I do strongly agree that if all that is wrong with an image is a simple typo fix that is easily determined simply by looking at rationale that the admin should fix it instead of templating, many of the more common mistakes require understanding what the uploader or image user was thinking of when they added the non-free, and that's something that while an admin might guess at, it might be a wrong guess, and it is up to the uploader or reuser to make sure it is correct. (That is one thing that fell out from the Betacommand mess, that the onus on proper rationales, etc. is on the uploader, though admins should use common sense to fix the obvious typos).
  • We do need every editor on both sides, the NFC admin and those using NFC, to come back towards a more personable way to handle NFC, but with the understanding that it is a severely under-admined area that might have to resort to simple shortcuts (templates) to process the situation effectively. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • User:EdChem, if a file has been removed from an article, then it is typically a lot easier for the uploader to tell if it is correct that the article is unused or if it should be restored to the article. Also, the sooner the uploader becomes aware that a file incorrectly has been removed from an article, the faster the uploader can restore it to the article, so to reduce the time during which the image is missing from the article, the file should in my opinion be tagged as soon as possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have updated the article Velo Vision by adding refs, and in doing so discovered that Peter Eland (who apparently took this picture, according to Guy) has retired from publishing the magazine and sold it to a former reader, Howard Yeomans. The fair use image data for the magazine cover being used in the article says that it is Intellectual property owned by Velo Vision Ltd. So isn't Yeomans now the owner of the intellectual property (the magazine cover) in question here?
  • Generally, yes, the sale of a property and all its old content transfer the copyright to the new buyer as well, but its possible there's different terms that allowed Eland to retain copyright, so there's no immediate way to tell without asking. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it not possible for this discussion to take place at the file's talk page (where efforts to resolve such matters are perhaps best placed)? The filing party acknowledges he didn't handle this very well, and if no actual sanction is going to result, must the discussion here be kept open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If by "acknowledging" you mean this dif please look at the three remarks made all at once there. I see "I'm sticking to my guns here" not a frank acknowledgement by Stefan of all the feedback they have been given here. I think this is pretty ripe for a boomerang by now, exactly because there is no sign they have heard what almost every commenter here has said. I was hoping to see them write something like "OK I get it. I withdraw this and will take the criticism I've gotten here on board." Stefan hearing what has been said here, is the one useful thing that could come out of what has otherwise been a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

More out of control legalism from Stefan2

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

These:

• WP:Files for discussion/2016 May 19#File:Oscar Building at Delaware State University - Rear.jpg
• User talk:Oscar6522
• User:Oscar6522/sandbox Optical Science Center for Applied Research at Delaware State University
• Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOscar6522 (indef block)

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

Comment Really, this amounts to WP:BULLYING by him. _Fortuna 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess you didn't see the comment further down, where copyright holder's information is in the metadata. Sir Joseph 18:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• May I motion to close the topic? This is just getting kind of pathetic now. HalfShadow 19:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

The way to stop the templating of the regulars is for regulars to stop doing stuff that one gets templated for; there's no particular reason the essay Don't template the regulars should be considered to have precedence over the essay template the regulars. Stefan2's major mistake here was picking the wrong forum, they would have been much better off filing at WP:CP. NE Ent 02:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course there's a reason to value DTTR over TTR: DTTR is in Misplaced Pages space, while TTR is in one user's space. DTTR has been edited by 107 editors and has 92 watchers, while TTR has only 37 editors and 37 watchers. Clearly, DTTR is a more widely accepted essay that TTR is, and represents the views of a larger slice of the community. BMK (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The quality of a painting isn't measured by brush strokes. NE Ent 22:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Good think we're talking about consensus and not art. BMK (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What got Betacommand banished was his perpetual insistence on treating other editors like criminals. And the OP here is headed in the same direction. A compromise solution could be to change the text of the templates to read more like friendly cautions than like subpoenas. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@NE Ent: In the example I posted above, I was template because someone removed the image from the article to which it related, so Stefan templated me to warn of deletion of the now-orphaned image. Stefan's response was basically that it was easier for me to fix because sometimes the uploader is in the best position to decide - an argument with some validity. In my case, however, Stefan had three files all titled along the lines of "Cover of " with a non-free use rationale describing use of a low-res file as the image of the cover of the journal for use on the page. Was Stefan really not able to figure out the solution (re-add the image, removed with no good explanation? Of course not. However, templating me was easier for him than actually solving the issue. My issue is if an essentially mindless response is going to be taken, cut out the editor and just use a bot. I was templated in the past (repeatedly) by a bot because the standard format for information on a file page changed. I fixed it because, although the information was all there, a bot couldn't have sorted it out easily but a person could (recent posts to Giano are eerily similar, but coming from another editor). I object to being templated as a way of telling me that someone else has stuffed something up and the template-posting editor won't fix it even when the solution is obvious because templating me is easier for her or him than actually looking at what needs doing. EdChem (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My comment was directed more towards the "don't template the editors," or, even worse WP:Don't template the admins canard than the specific incident here; the issue of Stefan's approach transcends the template, as indicated by the concerns over the Files for deletion EEng previously linked. Your point regarding the use of an impersonal bot to flag these is a good one -- would you like to take the lead on asking the bot people to produce such a thing? NE Ent 22:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought one of the big issues here was that JzG was an experienced editor. Why are we now talking about not biting the newcomers Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• BethNaught mentioned the issue above: "It's about principles: we are a free encyclopaedia". In other words, this report is part of a political campaign to force freedom on all contributors. That's great in principle but the problem is that mindlessly acting as an enforcer of the rules requires certain, shall we say, qualities, and those characteristics often make a user unsuitable for the task. What if the benefits of forcing freedom are outweighed by the problems of driving off good contributors with do what I say and do it now posts on user talk pages? If no one is able to do the job with tact and thought, it might be better if Stefan2 were to find some other hobby. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a useful area of discussion. You will say that forcing freedom is too harmful to be worth it and those people shouldn't he here. Others will say that as freedom is and has always been a fundamental part of the project, the failure of people to follow it would indicate they are the ones who shouldn't be here. As I mentioned above, what started this thread was ultimately a very experienced editor. Both can he called political campaigns or whatever you want. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what started this thread, Stefan's hamhanded, bossy, and I-don't-have-time-to-pay-attention-to-what-you're-saying approach has been a problem for years, and that's what we're discussing now. EEng 02:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Huh. And we wonder why the number of new editors we get is pitiful. Ed  05:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

We get lots of new editors. They just don't stay. EEng 03:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Revisit of User:SwisterTwister's reviewing issues

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

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

• "Patrolled" ~500 pages in ~24 hours: , at times reviewing up to four pages per minute. It seems highly unlikely that this could be consistent with diligent reviewing.
• Many patrols were unreviewed for apparent shoddiness during this period; the standard response by ST was removal of the notices without reply:
  • May 3, May 3 (2), May 8, May 13, May 13 (2), May 15, May 16, May 18, May 18 (2), May 19, possibly more
• At least one deletion-tagging reverted for hastiness: (probably others; I didn't do a thorough search for these)

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

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

• Note ST hasn't edited since 0740 this AM... so is probably still boiling the kettle as we speak. Or having a lie-in perhaps  :) _Fortuna 15:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(Pinging To editors Vanjagenije, Compassionate727 and Rebbing:)

• Comment: Perhaps I'm misreading this, but care to explain the selective pinging here? There were quite a number of people involved in the previous discussion, including myself. I'm deeply concerned by this and feel that it is highly inappropriate. Will comment later on the other parts of this discussion. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisw80: I think it's to do with this recent NPP thread about pages being reviewed quickly and ANI being mentioned -- samtar 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar:, hi there! Thanks for pointing that out. I see why swpb might have chosen those particular users, but I'm still not thrilled about it. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That is where those users came from. It wasn't a malicious choice; hopefully you AGF on that. You can certainly ping any voices you think are missing. —swpb 19:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to ban SwisterTwister from New Pages Patrol

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

• Checkuser note: The account above is checkuser-blocked as a sock of an account that has been in dispute with SwisterTwister for many months. Risker (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I don't normally get involved with AN/I issues, but (and certainly from the amount of time it took for my newly-created page to be marked as 'reviewed' whilst there were still obvious issues outstanding I was in the process of sorting) I think there's a real issue here - as per the previous discussion, speed is almost certainly not everything when involved with NPP. Mike1901 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support SwisterTwister reviews and tags hundreds of articles, but never replies to questions on his talk page in a timely fashion.JerryRussell (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. SwisterTwister's reviewing has barely gotten any better. He continues to receive a massive stream of "I have unreviewed a page you curated" messages. I've only received two of those in my entire life. Looking at his reviews, most of his articles are inadequately tagged: Adam Hassan Sakak, Living by Numbers (song), Digital Stimulation, Contribution (album), I'd Wait a Million Years, We Happy Few (Supernatural), Aureolaria patula, Buerhatong River, Beverley railway station, Western Australia, Zhang Kechun, Tarlac City local elections, 2016. Compare this with four articles I checked that were okay, two of them because there weren't any problems and one because he PRODed it. He isn't checking the articles very well. In my experience, doing only four a minute is plenty of time to adequately tag articles; he's clearly just not looking. And frankly, his refusal to communicate on his talk page is very obstructive. He was warned to fix his issues in the last ANI, and since he hasn't, I support a total ban from NPP. –Compassionate727  14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ST by and large kills it at NPP. Maybe he should be more open to talking about stuff, maybe he could be asked to refrain from hitting "reviewed", but no way in hell should ST be kicked off NPP. The flood of crap that will ensue would be unacceptable. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting we need one editor, and should therefore let them get away with clear violations? That's a horrifying precedent; luckily it's not one this community will ever take seriously. Since you are apparently unaware, ST has been "asked to refrain from hitting reviewed", many times; that request has gone totally unheeded. —swpb 14:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm suggesting nothing of the sort, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I didn't put words in your mouth (learn the syntactic difference between "are you" and "you are"), I asked you to clarify yourself, which you haven't done. So then you reject the idea that productivity should stand in the way of a behavior-based ban? It's a yes or a no. If no, then I stand by my question. If yes, then it's good to know you're abandoning your initial premise, because it was a pretty weak one. 14:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes you did. And I'm not going to bite at your bait. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In that case, why re-open the blooming thing?!?! _Fortuna 16:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Since no change since the previous discussion. Mendaliv - of course the backlog at NPP will be low when someone has opened the floodgates and doesnt watch what flows through. If ST's removal causes the backlog to grow to unmanagable proportions, well thats when the process will need to be looked at. But saying 'They do good work!' and using the evidence of the numbers they clear - when people are specifically complaining they are doing too many and not paying enough attention - is not a great rebuttal. I have just take a spot-check of some and they appear to be about 50-50 good/bad. Which is a terrible terrible ratio. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NPPCHK is a must, and this editor obviously does not perform it. Even more, he refuses to do it after being told so many times. That kind of behavior has to stop now. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have encountered SwisterTwister many times, and his judgement is terrible. Also, his extreme-deletionst standpoint at AfD should be reviewed as well. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I said in the last ANI discussion and I quote "I'm sure he'll walk away from this and hopefully would rethink and change some of his actions" ..... 2/3 weeks later he's apparently changed nothing and has just carried on regardless, As noted above he seems to blindly review everything without actually looking and the amount of unreview tags he's getting is rather surprising, He was given the chance to change and has apparently not bothered so we either block them for disruptive editing or we ban them from patrolling NPP ..... (Latter is the best choice IMHO). –Davey2010 15:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Although I wish this was now a thing of the past. SwisterTwister pledged I am willing to change my pace and better examine these articles, but his haste at NPP continues, and when asked about it his standpoint is that I'm not interested with any criticism. Sam Sailor 15:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: We would be far better served by a backlog at NPP that's processed correctly than the reverse situation. This has been going on far too long and SwisterTwister has demonstrated an inability to learn from feedback or to follow reasonable directions.  Rebbing  16:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. This is concerning, but I would like the defendant to have an opportunity to be heard before we hang him.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't have a comment on this reviewer's New Page Patrol, which is the subject here, but I am satisfied with this reviewer's work at Articles for Creation (AFC), which may be a more intensive process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, their AfC is quite good, and I'd be quite happy if they would stick with that. Frankly, I've sometimes wondered if they're going about NPP with an AfC mindset. Like, only tagging issues that might cause problems with AfC. –Compassionate727  17:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Sorry SwisterTwister, you do a lot of good work, but I ran out of good faith as of this. Taken in consideration with the other examples, I'm led me to conclude that little has changed, and allowing this to continue may harm the encyclopedia. No objection to ST requesting a lifting of the ban after six months, provided that everything else if good.- MrX 17:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I sampled about 30 articles that ST patrolled. In doing so, I found these: . Somehow, he's even managing to mark talk pages as reviewed . Dadzie has no sources and no evidence of passing WP:LISTN. Juliar doesn't have a single independent source and almost certainly fails WP:GNG. List of Battle Tendency chapters appears to be a listing of chapters, with no independent sourcing. Each of these pages should have been tagged and/or nominated for deletion. - MrX 11:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: and now he's supposedly retired. I think he's really just trying to be manipulative with that. –Compassionate727  17:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - First of all, thank you to Mojo Hand. Second, if at all I was going fast, it was honestly because, one, any large amounts are sometimes articles started by the same user, for example, Alexander Iskandar (who started several government articles) and also a few other users starting Olympic articles. Third, there had been a sock infestation at NPP recently and no one seemed to accurately be fixing it. See User:Ziyankhan1 and User:Sunekit, thus I went out of my comfort zone to ensure actual people were at NPP. Again, I have slowed down and people also have to consider the amount of what these articles are again, a user will start about 25 to 30 articles within hours, all about government, football, etc and they're easy and simple reviews. I would like for someone to have talked to me about this at my talk page or another path instead. As I've said before, if I don't respond at talk, it's either because I'm busy taking care of areas no one else visits, or I'm not always interested, either if it's negative and such. I have to also say, I'm rather concerned this is adjacent to an ANI about my AfD work....... SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: But what about the examples provided above in the discussion? Also, your history at AfD concerns me, because you vote delete 85% of the time, often with bad rationales. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @ThePlatypusofDoom: We've just covered this below - although ST primarily !votes delete they are nearly 100% accurate. I make no comment on their rationale, but I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here -- samtar 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: I know, I was explaining why I put it up there to SwisterTwister. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies - I have also moved your comment to help readability -- samtar 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

ST's AfD stas are totally irrelevant to this discussion as Platypus well knows. A more heavy-handed attempt at piling on with extraneity I haven't seen. For a while anyway. _Fortuna 18:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, I had been concerned with SwisterTwister's AfD votes for a long time, this seemed like a good time to bring it up, as he was already under discussion. I'm sorry if you feel like I was trying to harm SwisterTwister. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Moved back into conversation flow -- samtar 18:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, and no disrespect- but as your account is only six weeks old, I was curious as to the breadth of your experience at NPP etc. Cheers! _Fortuna 18:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A sock infestation? If it they were spamming junk, it was going to be caught. You didn't have to neglect 1,000+ (and at the rate you are going, with 500 a day, 1,000 is not an exaggeration) articles and clean it all up yourself. You also could've just found the sock(s) and gone through their contributions. Certainly would've been a lot less damaging. And just because their small doesn't mean they don't have problems. They need to at least be tagged with a stub tag, and usually they'll have insufficient references. That also needs to be tagged. Linkrot should be tagged (especially since that's the one category which has a user who actively cleans that up), and so should not having categories (which is a very easy check I see you haven't been doing). Frankly, I'm just not convinced. And like MrX mentioned above, seriously? Your tag didn't save and you didn't notice? –Compassionate727  18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: That's your best reason? It's not like you are the only editor at NPP. People will catch the socks, this doesn't give you an excuse to speed through NPP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support because of the apparent lack of improvement, demonstrated by the significant number of unreviews, since last time, when I indeed proposed a ban on marking pages as reviewed. BethNaught (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I've seen good work from SwisterTwister at AFC and CSD. The speed of NPP is concerning, so I would encourage him to take a break of six months from NPP.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Are you kidding me? I don't know if there is a case to be made for a topic ban here, but if there is then @Swpb: has done a very poor job of making it. In his proposal he states that ST has reviewed up to 500 pages in a 24 hour period and has had some unreviewed pages. That's to be expected; no one is perfect. For patrol activities I generally find coaching/feedback is warranted if the reviewer is performing at below a 95% accuracy rate - that would be about 25 failures per 500 patrols. Is ST performing below that level? I have no idea, because the OP hasn't made any effort to provide that information. Swbp has given about a dozen examples, spread over the last three weeks of pages that were unreviewed. So what? Out of thousands of patrols, that is perfectly reasonable - all editors are human, after all. The four per minute review tempo also isn't automatically concerning; no link was given to the reviews to see if more time was warranted: for example, it can only take seconds to identify an attack page - tag the article for speedy and you have 100% completed WP:NPPCHK. Swbp also makes a claim of "reverted deletion tagging for hastiness", but that claim isn't supported by the link provided (which traces back to a declined AfD submission). I find the number of editors jumping on this bandwagon without justification (or indeed, expression of any individual thought) deeply concerning. A ban should be a last resort, people. The lack of justification combined with the onerous selective pinging really strikes me as more reminiscent of bullying than anything else. VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone knows what ST's accuracy rate is, but given his rate and his policy of marking pages "patrolled" when he hasn't really looked at them but merely intends to later, there's no way his false-negatives are limited to the undone reviews that made it to his talk page. But more importantly, he has directly defied the will of the community, and lied about an intent to change his practices at this very forum less than three weeks ago. We cannot put up with that. —swpb 22:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Bull. If you want someone banned, you make a case for it. Present evidence of poor NPP performance, and I will review your claim and respond with my informed support or opposition. Please link proof that ST consistently "hasn't really looked at them but merely intends to later". To what "will of the community" are you referring? Fair warning: if you link to a discussion that was closed as "no consensus" you earn a trout. VQuakr (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister said that his NPP reviewing would improve, but he still is doing an abysmal job. He is hurting the encyclopedia because of this. Also, consensus seems to be overwhelmingly for the NPP ban. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I know counting votes isn't the way to decide consensus, but so far there has been twelve "supports", and the only "Oppose" vote is behind a weak argument. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: he still is doing an abysmal job. Based on what information have you reached this conclusion? I know counting votes isn't the way to decide consensus... Great; don't. VQuakr (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Look at any of the examples provided above. Also, he is getting a constant stream of "I have unreviewed an article that you reviewed" messages, look at his talk page! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I already addressed that in my post here. If, as you imply, your assessment is based on the ~0.3% of ST's May reviews that have been linked in this discussion, I can safely ignore your opinion as too uninformed to have value. VQuakr (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Weak argument my eye. Someone mischaracterized my argument, more like. ST hasn't straightened up sufficiently to meet some arbitrary standard, and as VQuakr rightly points out, the case hasn't been made that ST's miss rate at NPP is unacceptably high. Let's see some proof. Not cherry-picked examples, but evidence that there's a systematic failure that is not only significant, but is disproportionately worse than other NPPers. That's the case you need to make to justify a ban from hitting the reviewed button. Banning from NPP entirely is a completely separate matter from what any of the above evidence shows. Is there evidence of significant misuse of CSD for instance? If not, it's inappropriate to fully ban him from NPP since he'd be unable to tag new pages for CSD. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I would need to make a tool that tracks his RPP NPP stats. Is anyone a decent enough coder to do that? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I think you mean NPP Omni Flames 23:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: yeah, I messed up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: I don't think anyone in this case wants to see SwisterTwister's Requests for Page Protection. Whoops. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I expect anyone clearing new articles at a rate measured in pages/minute should be correctly reviewing/tagging/fixing 99% of the pages they mark reviewed - if less than 99% better to be slower than less accurate. NPP is not about how many articles you review but how well you review them. That said no one has shown ST is making 1% errors over time. Demonstrate 1% 5% bad rewiews and I will support the ban. (I say 1% in this case when 5% is the typical rate for problematic reviewing because ST's high absolute number of reviews means more bad articles get through and it is obvious there is room to slow down and still get a lot done when one is reviewing 500 articles/day.) Jbh 01:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Changed to 5% because it is better that a 95% good review be done by ST than a crap review by some editor who thinks NPP is just an easy version of vandal fighting or is simply inexperienced and clueless. Jbh 01:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to me SwisterTwister was right in these 2 cases, although the others were definitely an error of judgement.

• May 19 - The un-reviewing was done by a sockpuppet account. (See log and history of Srikanth Gowda)
• May 18 (See log and history of Pakokku University)- The article in question seems to have been un-reviewed by a new user (who is learning their way around and prematurely nominated it for speedy). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a blanket ban from NPP (but support an alternate solution) I have seen SwisterTwister's work directly at AfD and indirectly at AfC. In both of these, I would say they have done a reasonably good job overall. (including AfDing Misplaced Pages's longest running hoax). For the errors in judgement at NPP, I am hesitant to support a blanket ban at this time. Firstly, because I haven't seen the statistics (per Jbhunley and VQuakr). Secondly, considering that ST is one of the few to volunteer at NPP, I would rather concentrate on finding a solution to improve ST's accuracy. Implementing a 6 month blanket ban wouldn't help it. I tried doing NPP about 2 months ago and found that I got quickly tired. After reviewing about 20 pages, a temporary fatigue set in and my internal standards for an article started decreasing. I have stopped doing it since. My suggestion here would be to limit the number of articles that can be reviewed per day for ST and then monitor the accuracy. What should be the limit can be discussed. But I don't think a blanket ban will be productive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose a topic ban. Are you serious? ST is easily our most dedicated and active reviewer at NPP. As someone who patrols new pages themselves, I know that we badly need more patrollers. I've also come across ST a large number of times and I must say that I've generally been thoroughly impressed by his work. Have you even considered what will happen if we ban him? Patrolling is one of the most difficult and tiring tasks that needs to be done here. It's also one of the most important, because the longer an attack page or advert stays as an article, the worse. We should be spending time gathering new reviews, not banning them!

I'd also like to point out that the OP really did make some very poor arguments when opening this topic. They gave a total of ten examples of incorrect new page patrolling over a 16 day period. The OP also said that he's patrolling around 500 pages every day. Let's do some maths here, that means that ST patrolled approximately 16*500=8000 pages in that 16 day span. Of course, there are probably more examples of that, but the OP failed to give them. 10 wrongly patrolled pages out of 8000 is an amazing success rate. We shouldn't be basing a topic ban on the number of inappropriate patrols, but rather a ratio of inappropriate patrols to total patrols. A TBan for ST would be like banning someone for being too active. That's ridiculous. So, I'm strongly against this proposal, or at least until someone gives me some half-decent evidence that SwisterTwister patrolling new pages is harmful to the encyclopedia. Omni Flames 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose NPP ban for ST. ST NPPed 500 articles in 24 hours? Why were there 500 articles to be reviewed? I doubt that ST was out-clicking the other NPPs. If and when other NPPs start complaining that ST is taking work away from them and ST is still doing a poor job, then let's discuss it. Couldn't we solve the problem by doing more NPP ourselves? Jim1138 (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose- those asking for a ban have not really made that strong a case that SwisterTwister's mistake rate is that terrible relative to the amount of work they do. Reyk _YO! 08:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • What "mistake rate"? You have to be doing something in order to be able to make mistakes. If he was reviewing articles, we would be able to comment on his mistakes, but he is not reviewing them at all, he just clicks "reviewed" button. There are no mistakes because he is not doing any job. He just marks articles as reviewed without actually reviewing them, and so prevents other editors from reviewing those articles. I believe it is better to have 10,000 unreviewed articles waiting for review than to have 10,000 articles marked as "reviewed" that are actually not reviewed. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That's not what appears to be the OP argument: it's that ST's review quality is too low. We're asking for proof of that. A conclusory statement that he's just clicking review without checking is not a valid proof. Provide proof of your claim please. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
      • In the same minute, this editor marked this, this, this, this and this as reviewed. It is not possible even to read those five article in less than a minute, let alone to check WP:NPPCHK. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It took me less than a minute to see that three of those are songs/albums which charted so pass the music SNG. The bio is sourced, not an attack piece and has a decent chance of passing GNG. The only one I am unsure about is Digital Stimulation, it seems to not have charted but I see enough press on it that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would have either passed on it or PRODed it but popular music is not my thing. Jbh 17:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Some articles can be reviewed very quickly, but others take time and effort. For example, if one encounters a really well-written academic level article or something that sounds like marketing copy, the first thing they should do is search for potential WP:COPYVIOs. These are much more common than one would imagine. If a patroller encounters a new article with inexplicable disambiguation, for example Climate change consequences, they should check Misplaced Pages for duplicate articles (Effects of global warming). Likewise, if encountering Rippy McFlyRapper (musician) a search might reveal a previous AfD for Rippy McFlyRapper. An stub article about a village in Pakistan, may only include the name of the village and the nearest road. In my opinion, at least a category, or the name of the country, should be added to the stub before reviewing it. - MrX 18:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes, however what has not been demonstrated is that ST is giving short shrift to such things. I would be much more inclined to support sanctions if it was shown that he was letting through non-notable subjects, copyvio, blp violations etc but that has not been demonstrated. Personally I think cats, refs, links etc should be cleaned up too, or at least a reasonable try with the automated tools be made, but the big things are blp, notability, copyvio and promo ie keeping the articles that should not be here out before they get lost in the millions of other articles.

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

• Oppose I agree with what other editors who are opposing are saying above. There is no evidence that SwisterTwister's ratio of incorrect to correct reviews is anything to be concerned about. I have looked through a sample of their last 30 or so patrolled pages and I'm not seeing any problems. Pages that should have been tagged were, ones that should have been speedyed or prodded were, and correctly. I also looked at the last 7 pages that were unreviewed. There was one on 12th, two on 13th, two on 16th, one on 18th and one on 19th. None of these were unreviewed because of a legitimate problem with SwisterTwister original review. I will list my assessment of each unreview below.

• 12th May - Connor Flegal - This was weirdness in the patrol log probably caused by an edit conflict. The patol log says MrX unreviewed and tagged as speedy deletion. SwisterTwister said in response on his talk page that he though he had tagged for speedy deletion. Both probably tagged at the same time, MrX's tagging went though and the patrol log got messed up. I've seen something like this happen before.
  • That's incorrect. He marked it as reviewed well before I nominated it for speedy deletion. The article was clearly vandalism.- MrX 11:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The page log shows three entries
      • 02:31, 12 May 2016 MrX (talk | contribs | block) marked Connor Flegal as unreviewed (I'm not sure why this was marked as reviewed. It's utter nonsense.)
      • 02:44, 12 May 2016 SwisterTwister (talk | contribs | block) marked Connor Flegal as reviewed
      • 03:40, 12 May 2016 Explicit (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Connor Flegal (G3: Vandalism)
    • Your entry of unreviewed is the first one. The only way that can happen is if you both tagged the page at the same time and the conflict caused the log to think that SwisterTwister reviewed it and then you unreviewed but only your edit went through so only your entry showed up in the log. 13 minutes later SwisterTwister then marked it as reviewed because it was still showing as unreviewed even though you had tagged it.Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
      • You missed this one from 3 hours and 28 minutes before I unreviewed the page. The chronology: ST reviewed the page; I unreviewed and CSDed the page; ST reviewed the page again.- MrX 17:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• 13th May - Caspar Lee by Sally - Loriendrew and SwisterTwister both tagged at same time creating edit conflict which autoreviewed/unreviewed.
• 13th May - Tejasvi - SwisterTwsiter and Swbp tagged at the same time; another edit conflict.
• 16th May - Team 1325 Inverse Paradox -SwisterTwister prodded, Randykitty deprodded and tagged which is perfectly acceptable and the way Proding is supposed to work. SwisterTwister responded the the message on his talk page and the took it to AfD where the page is most likely going to be deleted.
  • Small correction. After ST's prodding, the page creator removed the prod . Randykitty tagged after that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• 16th May - Nam phrik ong - SwisterTwister added a refimprove tag about the same time another editor added a rough translation tag. This was probably another edit conflict.
• 18th May - Pakokku University - Page was auto-unreviewed by new user when they incorrectly added CSD tag. SwisterTwister's original review of the page was fine; he had added unreferenced and stub tags.
• 19th May - Srikanth Gowda - Page was unreviewed by a now blocked sock. SwisterTwister had added correctly added a BLP sources tag.

I have not seen anything to give me any concern about their ability to review pages. There is certainly not enough evidence to justify a topic ban. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence has been presented of a problematic error rate, and Sarahj2107's analysis convinces me that a few pages being unreviewed is not much of a problem. Overall, SwisterTwister's success rate at this thankless task looks pretty good to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarahj2107's information --Cameron11598 09:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Omniflames and Sarahj2017. I am not convinced that ST's error rate is unacceptable, and I do not want to lose the NPP services of someone who works so hard at what, as Boing says, is a fairly thankless task. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. Plenty of circumstantial, suggestive evidence has been offered against ST; but we cannot afford anything but the hardest facts and proof of malfeasance. This would be in the form of (high) numbers, copious diffs, and qualitative damage to WP. None of which has been presented. We have to have to hold the evidence to such a high standard in order to prevent our own actions creating a net loss for the project. _Fortuna 11:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: absolute ban from NPP. For same existing reasons as in first community discussion. In addition, the lack of improvement and the apparent lack of cooperation on SwisterTwister's part to improve or even seeming to care. I feel the need to fret when I encounter an abyssmal article (as yesterday - the last I uncurated a page and the notice landed on his page.) Why should I have to undertake the research to prove that the article is not worthy after having been patrolled? Said article Aima Baig is now up for PROD, nominated by another editor entirely: so three other editors have now taken efforts on an article that should not have been patrolled as approved in the first place. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 12:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't have to reverse a curate, but you should demonstrate that ST's miss rate at curation is disproportionately bad. It's just as easy to argue here that ST has many misses because he curates a lot of pages. High producers will always produce a larger number of mistakes than low producers when their mistake rate is the same. That there's a significantly different mistake rate has never been demonstrated. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is all about the error rate, not whether more than zero errors were made. Not enough evidence to merit a ban. Carrite (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Some articles can be reviewed fast, with knowledge of the relevant policies. On the whole, ST seems to do a good job of reviewing. Reviewing quickly isn't an argument, unless you can provide evidence that they are doing a bad job. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support two-week ban from NPP: I think this is not ST's biggest problem area, but I do think he needs a short, sharp slap to slow down a bit, as clearly, asking nice with a carrot isn't changing his mind. Then a chance to see if he gets it. I've been troubled by his tendency to conflate quality with notability. To do NPP properly, one has to differentiate between the two. I've also been troubled his insistence on deletion when merging or userfying would work better. He's working too fast and with inadequate analysis at times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - While not quite as poorly thought out as the proposed AFD ban, (truly terribly done) I still don't think it's enough to warrant a ban. I wish ST would slow down though, if for no other reason than to appease the proposers, so they'll cut it out with these lengthy discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: As pointed out frequently above, there is simply not enough evidence that ST's error rate is high enough to support a ban here. One of the examples above (a selection of five articles, mostly music-related) was presented by Vanjagenije. I took up the challenge and came up with precisely the same results at Jbhunley. I do agree that ST should slow down, but the problem is NOT severe enough to support a topic ban. SwisterTwister, in the interests of letting this situation cool for a bit, would you be willing to take a voluntary 3-6 month break from NPP? This might resolve everything in the long run, as well. Chrisw80 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • How do you intend to make him to slow down? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Asking nicely, possibly calling for a review-per-minute rate restriction, or maybe assembling actual evidence of an unacceptable error rate by which a NPP ban could be supported. As far as I can tell he might have been asked to slow it down, but with no clear evidence to support an unacceptable mistake rate, why should he? In any event, any of these should have preceded the first call for a NPP ban, and absolutely should have come in the mere three weeks following it. That actually brings me to a related point: Why are we hammering on this same point only three weeks later? Come on people. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
      • First, you say that you "do agree that ST should slow down", and than you wonder "why should he?". Now, which one of thopse is your opinion? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not see the evidence that there's an actual problem here. As noted with the AFD votes, simply voting delete a lot isn't wrong if those things should be deleted. There's no requirement that you must expressly vote keep/delete in some bizarro ratio for amusement. The examples don't even tell much. For Caspar Lee by Sally, it was patrolled because ST prodded it but unpatrolled to A10 to delete it because that South African youtuber actually had an article already. Hannah Watkins was patrolled and listed for CSD but instead was moved to draftspace (where Draft:Hannah Watkins was wrongly deleted under A7 which is inapplicable to drafts). The issue is there's so much odd stuff that happens with new pages, anyone can nick-pick a few examples but I'm not seeing a pattern that evidences actual problems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose This is an outrageous and utterly ridiculous idea. SwisterTwister by and large kills it at NPP, and banning him from NPP would ensure that it fills up, and probably overrun by trolls. His reviewing may be too fast and inaccurate at times, but he is human like everyone else, and a topic ban is not the answer. Please strongly consider the repercussions of doing such an act if you decide to ban him, because you will most likely lose a very good editor if you do. Tom29739 20:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would rather have ST clear the backlog than editors with 100 mainspace edits. Insufficient evidence to show that ST has a high proportional error rate. Esquivalience 23:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I have only ever seen a guy doing shitloads of work in a positive manner. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. While I don't always agree with ST at AfD, his work there is an asset to the project, as his work at AfC. I don't do much work at NPP, but do try to contribute from time to time. Like ST, if I see a few articles by the same editor, and after looking at the first article, the next few become very quick reviews, since they usually follow a pattern. This just happened the other day when I went through several articles by a single editor who was creating them for legislative districts in the Philippines. Based upon the examples given in the above thread, there does not appear to be a major issue (when viewed as a %) with ST's NPP. I would like to see ST slow down a bit, but that's not a reason to block. Onel5969 02:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: No good deed goes unpunished. Suggest supporters/proposers of this proposal find something productive to do rather than harass those who are assets to the project. This is the kind of thing that scares away good people. Vrac (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm not a huge fan of his rationales at AfD, but he's usually right. He is doing good work at NPP. I shudder to think of what would happen in case of a topic ban. Don't tell me people are lining up to do NPP drudge work on a volunteer basis. They aren't. He is a net asset to the project. I would like to see a demonstration that his error rate is higher than the average. MisterRandomized (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Similar to last time, pointing to a few mistakes is not sufficient evidence for a ban/sanction. To me it looks like the bigger issue, which exacerbates the frustration caused by any mistakes he makes, is the failure to communicate effectively when problems arise. That's something he needs to work on, or we'll likely be back here, regardless of whether he slows down. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Length of ban—6 months?

Propose close

Would someone uninvolved please close this? Jbh 18:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded: Let's not drag this out. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. Even though there wasn't a clear consensus, I don't regret bringing this here. I think it is good to see where we agree, disagree and what is simply in the gray area. It was an editor, not an admin, that added the BLP and DS stuff, however, so I have no idea how the closer will handle that. Regardless, I will live with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Despite my earlier Support !vote, I agree too - there's clearly not consensus at the time, and, upon reflection, I can see that the incidents referred to are isolated in proportion to the number of pages patrolled. Mike1901 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister's AFD issues

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

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

@ThePlatypusofDoom: however their accuracy (green) is 100% 94% - admittedly the majority of voted AfDs are yet to be closed -- samtar 15:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Above percentage edited from 100% edited per RickinBaltimore's comment -- samtar 15:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

FWIW, while they have had a large percentage of delete votes, the more important thing to look at is how many of their votes were against consensus. Of their recent 500 AfD votes (), it looks like they match consensus 94% of the time, which honestly is pretty good. That's not even close to being disruptive. Just voting delete isn't a bad thing, if that's the case I should be banned from AFD too. () RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Samtar and RickinBaltimore: percentage of votes to delete is not a good measure of quality. ST's AfD behavior may be problematic, but sufficient evidence of that has not been presented here. —swpb 15:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Propose close this as irrelevant. An editor having a certain view as to whether to generally keep / delete articles does not, thanks to the requirement for consensus, do any major damage to WP (unlike the issues above, which undoubtedly could). _Fortuna 15:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Expanding to 500 !votes shows an accuracy still approaching 100%, with one Keep !vote on an article that was deleted and only a handful of Deletes on articles that were Keep. SwisterTwister is a deletionist, but that is a very very long way from having a "terrible" track record - most of these articles were Deletes by consensus, and !voting with the consensus can hardly be represented as a problem whether you like the consensus or not. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Can I be absolutely honest - I've noticed more than once ST !vote delete in something where for instance the discussion's going towards redirect .... I've had the impression he doesn't review the article nor the AFD !votes ..... He just blindly !votes whatever...., However if somehow he does have a good record then I guess it's not much of an issue... –Davey2010 15:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Close speedily The issue at AfD is not the stats but the quality of the !votes. However, this is not a major problem because the closing admin will weigh them appropriately. I would suggest closing this speedily as it's a distraction from the report above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Obvious Oppose. The count of 95% of !votes cast as delete is utterly irrelevant if a) the editor tends to !vote on AFDs they think should result in delete and doesn't !vote much on AFDs they think should result in keep, and b) their record in agreeing with the eventual outcome is strong, which it is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a question of nomenclatura, but when editors are !voting oppose are they also !voting to speedy-close this thread? Or not? _Fortuna 15:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and close: SwisterTwister's AfD contributions are notoriously lackluster, and I assume any closer worth her salt disregards them completely. He has a high accuracy rate because he typically waits to vote until there's an obvious consensus and then repeats it in boilerplate language. (He explained in the previous ANI discussion that he " to vote at all AfDs to simply get a clear consensus.") That said, I don't believe poorly-researched yet voting made in good faith is sanctionable, and, even if it were, a topic ban would be far too soon.

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

Disruptive editing by user Pprcgi

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

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

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

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

Indian sponsored terrorism to sabotage the project

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the diffs of disruptive edits: Willard84

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

1. My mistake. 2. User notified Willard84 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, with a reminder that recidivism will produce longer blocks. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerning behaviour and username Cartoon Network (CN) Master

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

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

Smells of fresh, out of the package socks to me... but I don't have enough diffs to pinpoint who. The name is similar to a known sockpuppeter's naming pattern, but they've been inactive for about a year. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

They randomly put an indef banned template on User:Surappagari. --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps they are related accounts? (Belonging to the same person?) --Cameron11598 23:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The "removing unnecessary spaces or blank lines" reminds me of this. Omni Flames 06:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Return of Bigshowandkane64

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

Given the cross-wiki nature of the abuse, I've globally blocked the 72- IP and locked the account and a couple of sleepers. It's worth noting that not all of the edits are vandalism, so reverting on a case-by-case basis might be best unless they're banned. You could also start an SPI for them here and on simplewiki. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Bigshowandkane64 is banned from the English Misplaced Pages, actually. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure. I've struck that part of my comment. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And now he's returned as 23.25.251.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (the IP geolocates to New Hampshire as with BSK64's other IPs). Not good. I've reverted his edits per WP:BAN, since bans apply to all edits good or bad. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Return of Indian cinema sock (and now personal attacks)

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

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

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

And now this sock is harrasing me. I asked them not to post on my talkpage at 13:22 and they've added the same nonsense three times since being told not to. Lugnuts 12:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Make that four times by reverting my removal of their comments on my talkpage! Lugnuts 12:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've lost count now of the times he continues to post on my talkpage (someone take a look...) and it's now gone to personal attacks... Lugnuts 12:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Next. Lugnuts 12:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend. Lugnuts 12:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• repeatedly insinuating that I and others have some sort of pro-DPRK agenda (or perhaps an anti-ROK or anti-reunification agenda) for recommending that Misplaced Pages romanize Korean words based on English-language reliable sources rather than ROK government guidelines that are out of line with English Misplaced Pages guidelines;
  • misquoting WP:SNOW as being in his/her favour when Pldx1 is the only one arguing for one side and five other commenters are arguing for the other;
  • in one instance also accusing other editors of arrogance/elitism;
• sarcasm and assumption of bad faith on Talk:List of rulers of Ife;
• engaging in "opposition research" by looking up my block log and using it to attack me in response to my warning him about the appropriateness of the above.

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

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

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

The above is a perfect example of Pldx1's inscrutability and apparent assumption of bad faith. Not only have not used that page to "describe how I dislike any contradiction about Korean topics", the page has nothing whatsoever to do with Korea! He appears to have learned the word "lecture" from me within the last 24 hours, but "lecturing about blocks and so on" is a pretty bad description of this. And yet again he has made an obscure reference to WP:SNOW that doesn't appear to be the way that word is used on English Misplaced Pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That List of rulers of Ife is certainly an indecipherable mess. Looks like an exercise in original research and synthesis, with a lot of talk-like commentary mixed into the article. Pldx1 pretty much created it in its current form, and it's unlikely that he or anyone else will be able to fix it. I'd call it hopeless and move on. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at your block log isn't opposition research. Throwing it in your face is rude, I'll grant that, but it's incorrect to describe it as opposition research in the same vein as googling someone's username and finding out things they've said in other fora, or even so far as trolling through someone's every contribution to find some cherrypicked diff to throw in their face. Also, the problem with List of rulers of Ife is related to the recent Wikicology arbitration case. Pldx1's research was important there, and his work on List of rulers of Ife appears to be an attempt—albeit imperfect—to merge Ooni of Ife into that page, as well as rectify the problems that Pldx1 discovered. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: If you check the wikilink, I didn't describe it as "opposition research in the same vein as googling someone's username"; I described it as "opposition research in the same vein as checking the logs with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". :P

Throwing it in my face was rude and off-topic. The fact that I was blocked twice in 2013 because Drmies didn't know how to enforce a two-way IBAN (he apologized almost immediately thereafter and admitted the block was inappropriate) and David Fuchs considered a good-faith edit accidentally made while still logged into a main account with email privileges rather than a declared alternate account with no email address attached to it worthy of an indefinite block under that unique set of circumstances (he didn't protest when another non-CU admin unblocked me immediately thereafter), or that I was blocked a few weeks and quickly unblocked on appeal because a significant number of admins considered the block to be unnecessary, is entirely irrelevant to my capacity to tell Pldx1 that his/her behaviour is inappropriate and may lead to blocks if he/she doesn't reform. Throwing my (mostly very old) block log in my face is just an indication that he/she may be unwilling to reform. There is also the problem that due to various sanctions I am unable to defend myself against attacks like that without risking being blocked again. Attacking someone who can't defend themselves is the worst, although I'll admit that Pldx1 probably didn't go so far as to check whether the IBAN in question was still in place.

The fact that Wikicology messed up a bunch of articles does not mean we should turn to diligent (and probably good-faith) but equally incapable editors to fix the problem.

AGF is good, but when we have to assume poor proficiency in English, poor research skills and (after seven years!) just plain not understanding Misplaced Pages's PAG, that actually isn't much better than the conclusion that he/she is being disruptive on purpose. I kept direct commentary to a minimum during the Wikicology case because I was blown away by what had happened, but I did read through the entire ANI thread before the ArbCom case, and went through the entire final decision after it had been completed (I even cited it in a related discussion). Giving Pldx1 a free pass because he/she was critical of Wikicology earlier is like crediting the pot for calling the kettle black.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that you linked to WP:HOUND. My understanding has usually been that the phrase "opposition research" on Misplaced Pages refers to WP:OUTING (in fact, that's the only place that the phrase occurs in WP:HARASSMENT). I respectfully disagree that throwing your block log up in your face should be considered Wikihounding, let alone outing. It's rude, and that's all. The rest of what you point out above is, honestly, minor. I don't see any of the deceitful, troublesome, POV-pushing character in any of the diffs you've provided. At worst, Pldx1 is trying to use incisive wit in a dispute, which is coming out as sarcasm. That isn't necessarily a bad thing either. The English issue is obviously a problem, but I don't see it as insurmountable. What I see here is a MOS dispute that involves an aspect of Korean history. MOS disputes and recent Korean history are individually very polarized and polarizing subject areas, and combined it's no different. It's possible that if Pldx1's argumentation is sufficiently disruptive, some sanction may lie under the WP:ARBATC discretionary sanctions. But I'm not seeing it at this point to be honest. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"Wit"? If what he has been doing is deliberate, then this is a serious breach of CIVIL if nothing else. More likely, though, he does seriously think the clean-up template I placed has something to do with Korea, and he does think that the rest of the commenters in the MOS RFC are part of some grand northern conspiracy. Literally every time I have replied to him I pointed out that my rationale is based on English-language reliable sources, but he keeps beating the "Misplaced Pages should not be siding with North Korea" drum. I hate to think what will happen when the result inevitably doesn't go his way -- if I try to implement my proposal it looks like I'll almost certainly get reverted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Although I do see your points. Both MOS and Korean history are firepits. I was frankly a little surprised that Pldx1 was the only one to show up and accuse me of being a North Korean spy. I guess it might be worth just waiting the MOS discussion out and seeing if the disruption continues afterward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The first thing to do when writing an article is to collect sources, compare them, and see if they are compatible or not. This has been done at List of rulers of Ife. If anyone wants to make a better use of these sources, then be bold, you are welcome. Side remark: Administrators noticeboard incidents is not about the articles themselves. And now, let us look at behaviors. Misplaced Pages is a wiki. The existence of an history mechanism is a key feature of the regulation process. When seeing the last reply of User:Hijiri88, at the top of this whole mess, it is only but natural to look again at blocks of Hijiri88. The keyword that appears is BATTLEGROUND. Everybody can see, just above, «he keeps beating the "Misplaced Pages should not be siding with North Korea" drum» (obviously without any references). Everybody can read Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Ife (this is short) and have her own opinion. Everybody can read Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Korea-related_articles#RfC:_Which_romanization_system_should_be_used_for_pre-division_Korean_topics.3F (this is longer) and have her own opinion. Let us give nevertheless two quotes from Hijiri88 in the later discussion:

• Sentence "we should use the official South Korean romanization for all Korea-related topics because South Korea is better than North Korea" is stated between quotation marks, as if this was a quotation from someone before in the discussion.
• WP:KOREA members (many of whom have fairly poor English skills and have written a large number of very messy articles)

This gives the impression that User:Hijiri88 has a poor proficiency of cooperative mind. Once again, the next step seems to be somewhere between snow and a boomerang effect. Pldx1 (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Louise and Charmian Faulkner disappearance

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

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

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

Nuke the article?

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

Unless someone wants to go through the linked references and verify the article per WP:BLP, I agree with nuking it and encouraging the author(s) to start it over with properly cited statements. Without inline citations to verify statements (especially about the suspect), this is one big BLP violation (specifically, WP:BLPCRIME). clpo13_(talk) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was begun 8 1/2 years ago, and even then the case was 27 years cold. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Can someone with better wiki skills than me just nuke it or take it to AfD? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is this 8+ year old article suddenly a problem? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the case would easily pass notability...certainly at the time (notability doesn't deteriorate, true?) and even now...a lot of the sourcing are likely in newspaper articles from the time (I'm sure there was huge newspaper coverage)...but there's still enough stuff on the web...article may need to be altered, but not deleted...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

the Faulkner family seem to have been happy to use Misplaced Pages to brand a person a double murderer without a trial or conviction. The fact that this went unnoticed does not change the fact that it could have got the wiki in hot defamation water. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Bloody lot of good it did them, if the mystery is still unsolved. Is the case notable by itself? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Comment I've filleted it of all its cruft, promo, unsourced OR, trivia etc, leaving the sections that remain with an opening summary statement. Suggest the mentions of the George character are revdel'd, and the article is rebuilt from scratch. it's obviously got a lot of potential; but not with Melissa or whassname in charge. _Fortuna 19:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what I call a stubbing, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, very well done! Thanks also to Paul Benjamin Austin for reporting and to Doug Weller for quickly removing the egregious BLP vio. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC).

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

Take a look at Noel McNamara created by one of the main contributors. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and if this, like all the other dubious material, was created years and years ago, then it can be sent to AFD. No admin action is required here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I've seen advertising of products get treated nicer than this was. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Images and text

User has added this image https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Antiochus_Hierax.jpg and text among others to[REDACTED] articles such as

Images and text previously published here. They claim to own them but haven't sent OTRS permission yet. They claim the text is not copyrightable but I am not so sure. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

An OTRS ticket is required for any of the photos that were previously published elsewhere online. The thing to do is create a deletion discussion over at the Commons for these images. The best way to handle it is to list the photos at commons:Commons:Deletion requests, making a bulk request similar to this one. That way we can get them deleted in a timely fashion if he does not send a permission email to OTRS. If you need any help preparing this please let me know. For the prose, he says the same descriptions are used all over the Internet for these coins; that does not make the prose in the public domain and does not give us the right to reproduce it here. Someone is the original author, and they are the person who holds the copyright. I am going to post on his talk page and will remove any prose that he re-added. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on AN3

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

Would someone please hurry up and block this editor? Toddst1 (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Dennis Brown for edit warring on AN3. Edit warring on AN3 is probably the most ridiculous situation I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Thanks Dennis. Toddst1 (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Insomnia to the rescue. I didn't look at the merits of the AN3 report and will leave to others, but yeah, edit warring to change the order of who reported who at AN3 is pretty weird. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And now he's socking. There is a WP:CIR issue going on, I fear. Just adding the note to the record. If it keeps up, we might need a CU to look at a range block for a short while. Going back to sleep now.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And here comes Want a Hertz Donut? (talk · contribs) Favonian (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Had to impose a short-term range block on 75.162.0.0/16. Favonian (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Harssment by SPA

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

Yscambridge is a single-purpose account to get Rosena Allin-Khan's place of residence changed to Battersea from Tooting. I've pointed them to WP:RS, but they insist on claiming that "being able to look up her postcode" is a far better source than multiple newspaper sources. This post has taken it too far- they are questioning the integrity of my editing, saying " Misplaced Pages should keep to Battersea and people who repeatedly alerted contributors of legal information." and have accused me and Edwardx of "defying legally binding information". This user is clearly not here for any other purpose than to change Tooting to Battersea against actual reliable sources, and should also be blocked for harassment of other users. Their conduct is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yscambridge should be indefinitely blocked pending a retraction of this. It's 450 words of legalese intimidation that, even if stopping short of saying ‘‘I will sue you’’, is clearly in violation of the spirit of NLT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

They've posted very similar legalistic intimidation against me and Edwardx at User:Yscambridge. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph2302. This sort of behaviour is unacceptable, and a waste of our time. Plus there is nothing to indicate a willingness to learn or improve. Edwardx (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is pending deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Rosena_Allin-Khan; perhaps a passing editor with the admin WP:UAL could close it out? NE Ent 11:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that she is likely to win the by-election, after which the article would be restored, and judging by the persistence of this SPA, this issue seems likely to resurface. Edwardx (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If she wins the by-election won't more reliable sources surface to resolve the issue? If they don't, then clearly the subject still couldn't meet GNG. If the SPA is "right" in their assertions then once the subject is covered in enough detail in enough third-party reliable sources, they will start to back up the SPA's assertions; if not, and the SPA still persists, then just block them again. This assumes they are blocked for the NLT violations, apologize/retract, and are unblocked. At present, they are just waiting to be blocked per NLT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If she wins the by-election it won't matter, as she'll automatically be notable as a member of the Houses of Parliament. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait, that's a thing!? If she meets that criterion but still doesn't meet GNG, doesn't the article still get deleted? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:POLITICIAN, but in reality it's moot as even the simple news reporting on her election would gain her enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not if we couldn't write a decent independent biographical article on her without mentioning a certain fact and the simple news reporting on her election either didn't mention it or didn't focus enough on it for us to quote them on it and meet the very stringent criteria for BLP. I still like to cite this AfD on this point. To be fair, politicians are not like actors, in that invariably the most notable thing about them is their political career and such is almost always covered in the majority of RSs that cover them in any detail. Anyway, none of it really matters to this case, which appears to have been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, my attitude to "borderline" NLT-violations is the same as it was here. Neither Joseph nor Edward explicitly said that they suffered a chilling effect from Yscambridge's legalistic attacks, so the two-way AGF issue does not come into play quite as much, but the principle is the same, as it looks very much like a chilling effect was the intent of Yscambridge's posts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Now a personal attack] against me here, claiming I'm "abusing my power". So asides from the legal threats, they should also be blocked under Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyone bid a fond farewell to Yscambridge, as they are clearly not here anymore. Katie 12:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I am apparently full of shit

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

Proof: . I would appreciate if someone could teach this user manners.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

While I have no doubt in my mind that in this instance you are not full of shit and Cl (talk · contribs) should be sanctioned for the above, it probably would be more helpful to post this diff as well. Civility blocks should not be made without warning, and when someone warns a user and they literally respond by saying "I don't care" that's ... much worse than using the S-word in and of itself, in my opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Cl said something nasty to Ymblanter. Qed237 warned C1. C1 said he doesn't care as he doesn't live here. So, if C1 says something nasty again, someone can block them if they wish. Or maybe C1 will stay where they live and not bother Ymblanter or anyone else anymore. Look at the bright side. C1's comment permitted Ymblanter to use a pithy section header at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Bet someone thought he was confessing! _Fortuna 13:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)</ref>

I do envy Ymblanter that opportunity. My ANI section titles always wind up so dreary. To be fair, though, the adverb in the middle rather than at the start does make it look more like a sincere confession, as it makes it look more like "apparently" means "obviously" than "according to what this guy said". I would have almost certainly gone with "Apparently I am full of shit". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

IP breaching BLP

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

An IP has been posting inappropriate and BLP-violating information on the talk page Talk:Joseph J. Romm, accusing Romm of being a holocaust denier. The IP has been told in edit summary and on their talk page about the BLP policy, and told that Romm isn't a holocaust denier, but instead made the connection between climate change denialists and holocaust denialists. After the warning was posted to their talk page, the IP re-posted the accusation on the Romm talk page and deleted the warning on their own page. – SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP alleges there are many sources. The proper retort would be, "Name one." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The immediate retort to the IP's edit was my edit summary, "remove WP:BLP violation without any reliable sources or proposals for article improvement" – if the IP wanted to support allegations, it's up to them to provide sources for discussion. They were advised to "actually read the results of the Google search you insist people do: although the terms both appear in the same article, at absolutely no point does he deny there was a holocaust". The IP's response does not show any willingness to name a source. . . dave souza, talk 15:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Then it's time to block that yoyo. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel at this stage that a block might be a little harsh. The IP seems to have misinterpreted (AGF genuinely) what was said. Romm's analogy (as I understand it) was that denying climate change was a bad thing, as denying the Holocaust is. But, they (IP) have made a huge leap to taking that to mean denial of the Holocaust. Blocking may stabilise the article, but I believe it also important that the IP understands what they got wrong. Eagleash (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

But that has already been explained to them. The explanation was subsequently removed and the statement "Please leave this page free of your racist bollocks" left: they obviously did not read what was explained to them that time, but given their behaviour so far, I'm not entirely sure they will read a second or third explanation! – SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a block should be made. (1) The IP has put in the BLP violation three times and has ignored the edit summaries referring to WP:BLP; (2) The IP *deleted* the first warning from his page; (3) no reasonable person could believe from a Google search what the IP wrote. But even if a block is not made yet, an admin should leave a clear last warning on the IP's page. BTW, just in case anyone wants to know, what Romm actually wrote was this, this and this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic ip breaching blp

2602:306:CF91:4110:512A:A890:58B8:7FA9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Anonymous user has been making poorly sourced edits to articles (including Emma Bunton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the past several days. This is a typical example. Attempts have been made to explain to them our BLP policy, but without success. This is Paul (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the IP had been notified. Now done so. Eagleash (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to do that. This is Paul (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat inevitably they blanked the page. Eagleash (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Tell me about it. This is Paul (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Since some disruption is already happening in the article for several days, I semi-protected it for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Block review: User:Lop12345

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

Per WP:NOTHERE, this users' block should definitely be increased to indefinite. 172.58.40.86 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely make it indefinite. EEng 01:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Banned Fringe pusher back on Misplaced Pages

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

Jamenta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was banned on Misplaced Pages for making legal threats, attacking editors and repeatedly adding fringe content into paranormal articles and promoting conspiracy theories that skeptics own Misplaced Pages articles has returned on IP addresses back to his old tricks.

• 208.194.97.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (if you check the IPs talk-page he was previously blocked by an admin)
• 74.108.121.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He's now editing the Watseka Wonder article (see the talk-page), he has admitted to being Jamenta and here he admits to having been blocked , he states however "I had a temporary block years ago because I did not understand the reversion rules. I have never been disrespectful, and many of my edits are still in play." This information is false considering he was banned for legal threats and personal attacks (even his talk-page on his account he was swearing at people and telling them to go f**k themselves ). Is it possible to have an admin look at this, or block these IPS as this is an indefinite blocked Misplaced Pages user who only seems to turn up here to cause disruption on fringe-related articles. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

First IP blocked six months for legal threats and block evasion. That one is registered to Cahill Gordon & Reindel, a law firm in New York, so I'm taking that 'Wikimedia will face a host of lawsuits' stuff at face value. The second one is stale; if he starts to use it again, let us know. :-) Katie 19:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you looking into this and the quick response, thanks a lot. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he isn't a lawyer, even though it came from a law office, based on the incompetence of the legal threat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

He isn't a lawyer (in one post he says he knows lawyers), the username 'Jamenta' is a unique name - it is possible to find info about this person, of course we should not write about it on Misplaced Pages but all I will say is he has a history of arguing with people on the web. He has meddled Misplaced Pages for years. Likely these are also him:

Jaypronx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Strikertype (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jbricklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AlbaDeTamble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All those are stale accounts but three of them on behaviour and editing patterns are very similar to Jamenta. I consider this issue resolved for now, but I will keep an eye out. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP

Here: Mike1901 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Its probably the same guy from THIS thread on ANI earlier this week. --Cameron11598 20:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Same range too. -- The Voidwalker 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagged with the {{uw-nlt}} template --Cameron11598 20:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: you may want to know about this... --Cameron11598 21:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It's that same ref desk troll. Recently he accused me of something to do with Facebook. Pretty funny, since I don't use Facebook. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, he referred to my "fellow admins". I must have got a promotion and nobody told me about it. :) Or maybe a demotion? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Favonian blocked them for LTA. Keep an eye out though. They have been doing this for some time. -- The Voidwalker 22:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

We need an adult

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

There is edit warring going on at an RfA over trivial nonsense that should've been ignored. But since this RfA has no other drama, folks have latched onto the only drama visible no matter how mundane it is. Someone who hasn't !voted in the RfA, please decide what to do here.--v/r - TP 05:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some people still don't understand that we are here to build an encyclopedia. Feel free to WP:RBI that recent IP, who is obviously a sockpuppet of someone (I don't know who). This BS bores me. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not commented there. As an adult, I need some potato chips or a whiskey to motivate me. But I already commented elsewhere about what a great troll that was, so I guess I won't be getting to be your adult here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Potato chips? That is offensive to me! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

May you fry in oil! Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to take advantage of the fact that no one can make a joke based on your name! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is what TParis is talking about...

• Revert One
• Revert Two
• Revert Three
• Revert Four
• Revert Five

Most warnings are being removed - so it's assumed that they understand what they are doing here. SQL 05:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please write or improve some articles SQL. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit war seems to have ceased at this point, unless QuixoticPotato decides to just go off the deep end and revert again, which would break 3RR for good measure. This already deserves a place in the lamest edit wars list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I am bored of that BS. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the full war:

• Original edit by Cyberpower
• 1st Revert by The Quixotic Potato
• 1st Revert by Cyberpower
• 2nd Revert by The Quixotic Potato
• 1st Revert by Drmies (2nd in chain)
• 3rd Revert by The Quixotic Potato
• 1st Revert by The Ed (3rd in chain)
• 4th Revert by The Quixotic Potato
• 2nd Revert by The Ed (4th in chain)
• 5th Revert by The Quixotic Potato
• 1st Revert by 223.231.10.171 (5th in chain)

--v/r - TP 05:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that 223.231.10.171 is obviously a sock of someone. Also note that some people refuse to use talkpages, despite repeated invitations, but communicate (almost) exclusively using editsummaries. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries or not - when you remove warnings from your talkpage, it is assumed that you have read and understand them. SQL 05:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please write or improve some articles SQL. We aren't here to create and unnecessarily prolong drama, we are trying to build an encyclopedia. Congrats, the sockpuppet has succesfully defended WP:THETRUTH (unfortunately xe wasn't brave enough to log into xyrs account), now we gotta move on. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

...You were the only one edit warring. Do you not understand that concept? --Tarage (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know that feeling you get when you arrive fashionably late at a party, only to discover that all the cool people have moved on to an afterparty located elsewhere? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Already been warned - technically twice already I guess. SQL 06:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of blocks is to stop disruption. If the editor stops I will not block them. Tiderolls 06:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, stop posting warnings please, I actually get an email every time you post on my talkpage. Time machines have not been invented yet, which probably means they never will be. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are dissatisfied with your user preferences then change them. Tiderolls 06:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not. I assume that that means I shouldn't change them, right? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The other alternative is to change your behavior. You seem likely not to do that either it seems... Whatever, this is pointless. --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about, but I agree that it is pointless. Maybe you have confused me with someone else? Seems likely. No worries, I still love you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also stop the "I love you" posts. At best this is passive aggressive. At worst its totally creepy. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If you assume that someone writing "I love you" must be passive aggressive or totally creepy (or somewhere in between) then I don't really know what to say to that. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the username of that IP, I am not a checkuser. I knew in advance that xe's opinion was unpopular, and that not many people defend those who have differing opinions/are a minority. I am a straight male born in one of the richest countries in the world, I am an atheist, my family has been here for many generations, and people would describe me as "caucasian". With that in mind, please read my userpage. Does it looks like the userpage of someone who believes in the argumentum ad populum fallacy? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, leave the oppose vote and a comment for the 'crat to strike. Who gives a shi*t if it's struck now or after close when only the crat can do it? habbing the lame and closing with the ANI and comment to strike. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Self-requested block.

I would love a 72 hour block from editing. (including talk page access) please. This is due to a total lack of self-control, and an impending deadline for a huge pile of reports at work.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: Do you mean "hours"? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

haha, yes. Thank you for pointing that out. A 72 day/week/etc block would be a little too much. I will edit the initial post. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards