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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the article talk page Francis Schonken just wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]
  • Tx for pinging. No, your inference is wrong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tx for coming back on topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

1. excessive images
2. excessive lyrics

Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes does not have that problem.

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion: Strict BRD

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Restricted to 1RR

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

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

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)[reply]

• Support (as proposer) Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Creates a clear blue line for all editors; one that should be easy to not cross, but, one which it is easy to see when it has been. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This seems like a reasonable rescue package. Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Tx, same for me, and convinced it will work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support: Long overdue. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I was combing some of the case files to see what was ready to close, and after reading this one, I was inspired to comment. Wouldn't it be a welcome improvement to the entire DR process if more editors would conduct themselves the way Gerda Arendt and Francis Schonken did in this section despite their opposing views? Kudos. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Already answered above.[45] Zwart's drive-by edits to Orgelbüchlein (in 2012) involved blanking the phrase "a religious statement" from the lede, a simple paraphrase from Stinson (1999), who used the words "a theological statement". Zwart described this as religious POV pushing. Above Zwart wrote,[46] "Mathsci is hijacking Wikipedia to create a platform for his pet project(s) on Bach. What he is creating would make a great website, but it's not Wikipedia". Perhaps he's thinking of the Dutch wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

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

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

User EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in POV pushing and edit warring on Economic stagnation

• POV pushing- Boldly and aggressively asserts her POV with complete disregard of the facts by promoting the issue of economic inequality. (She actually admitted to bias on Talk:Economic stagnation)
• Disruptive edits- posting phony tags, reverts
• Failure to adequately discuss in Talk- she has never satisfactorily replied to a single request to explain her edits
• Makes false claims about what sources actually say and feels justified in doing so.

Her latest disruptive edit replaced this version [[71]] with the current version. This copmletely disrupts the article for the purpose of trying to post something about income inequality following the lede and putting the explanation of the term and the current debate about stagnation at the end of the article.

There is enough information on Talk:Economic stagnation to prove without any doubt that she is biased and POV pushing, misrepresenting facts and is not engaged in good faith talk discussions.

EllenCT has consistently tried to take over economic articles to push her POV on income inequality. Past encounters with her involved Economic growth and United States where she was defeated by several opposing editors. She engages in long, drawn out edit wars and phony Talk discussions that waste everyone's time. Phmoreno (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Phmoreno's history of trying to gain advantages in content disputes by ANI complaints, the linked instance having resulted in a boomerang. This instance is quite similar. Phmoreno is trying to use the economic stagnation article to push the fringe "secular stagnation" theory, which the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources show has never been borne out by facts and has always been disproven. Phmoreno favors secular stagnation theory because of his politically motivated support for associated and similarly discredited supply-side economics used to support trickle-down and austerity policies. I urge administrators to review the talk page discussion and article history carefully. Please note that Phmoreno takes apparent pride in rejecting our reliable source criteria when trying to advance WP:PRIMARY research reports for which he can find no support in the peer reviewed academic literature review secondary sources. I ask that he be restricted from editing on the topic of economics for at least six months and until he can agree to follow the reliable source criteria on WP:PSTS. I deny the allegations of bias other than towards the conclusions of the consensus of peer reviewed secondary sources, and I deny all the other allegations made above as obvious lies as examination of the article's talk page and the sources cited clearly show. EllenCT (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Having examined the talkpage I can see a number of arguments (assuming good faith) over content primarily between the both of you. Have you considered third party mediation? I prodded Volunteer Marek to comment as he has also edited there. But EllenCT, after reading that talk page, when it comes down to content, I generally agree with most of Phmoreno points. He has provided plenty of source-backed arguments which you have (despite being asked to) on a number of occasions been unable/unwilling to actually explain why and where you think they are correct. You clearly *do* have a specific POV (as anyone can see who has followed your economic-based discussions in a number of areas, including Jimbo's talk page) regarding certain economic issues which I think may be clouding your objectivity here. You don't agree with Phmoreno's position on certain subjects, but that is not reason to exclude their editing. This is certainly not 'superior' to this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with Volunteer Marek's repeated requests on the article's talk page that Phmoreno's favored "secular stagnation" theory be moved out into its own separate article? Do you agree with Marek's complaint that Phmoreno has been conflating and synthesizing multiple distinct secular stagnation theories?

Why do you suggest that the version presenting "secular stagnation" as fact in the first sections of the article is superior to the version which considers the international perspective first?

I most certainly am biased: towards the consensus conclusions of actual peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews on the subject, and against those who would try to use primary research papers without support in the secondary sources, or even less reliable sources, to push politically motivated fringe theories. Just because those consensus conclusions are congruent with certain political positions should not be construed to imply that I am trying to push them for political gain; only that I am clearly trying to improve the encyclopedia against the wishes of those who are trying to push fringe theories without any such WP:SECONDARY support. I have repeatedly complained about this continuing situation here, at Arbcom, and on Jimbo's talk page because Jimbo's pre-Wikipedia association with Objectivist anarcho-capitalists has resulted in widespread systemic bias across dozens if not hundreds of economics articles. EllenCT (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the 'Stagnation' article is overly large, I dont favour splitting it out. But 'secular stagnation' does have enough commentry and sourcing to stand alone if that was the consensus to split it. But thats the point, thats an editing discussion for an RFC, not a behavioural one. RE 'anarcho-capitalists' the problem is you see them everywhere. You give too much credence to Jimbo's opinions and past economical leanings - you certainly give them far more credit for influencing wikipedia than actually is the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out repeatedly on the article's talk page, [72] documents the evidence that secular stagnation has never held true, e.g. in the third and fourth sentences of it's abstract. Why do you believe it should be included? Do you have objective evidence that I have overestimated the influence of supply siders, trickle down proponents, and austerity advocates in Wikipedia, or is it just a personal opinion about me because I am one of the few who have not given up on countering the systemic bias? Have you reviewed the several years long history of what happens to professional academic economists who try to edit in accordance with actual peer reviewed literature reviews, against the wishes of far more numerous amateur supply side enthusiasts? Unless you have actual evidence in support of your opinion, I feel that your characterization of my assessment of the situation from years editing on the topics is ill-informed at best and verges on a baseless personal attack. EllenCT (talk)

"Do you have objective evidence that I have overestimated the influence of supply siders, trickle down proponents, and austerity advocates in Wikipedia," No. Nor do I need to provide any. As the person asserting that multiple wikipedia editors over a period of years have deliberately skewed economic articles due to being 'supply siders' 'trickle down proponents' and 'austerity advocates' the onus of proof is on you. I should point out that charactising editing opponents as 'supply siders' 'austerity advocates' etc amply demonstrates your lack of objectivity in the area. Either learn to settle content disputes amicably amongst yourselves or seek mediation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there could be any more compelling proof than that you agree with Phmoreno's inclusion of a discredited supply-side theory at the top of the article against the conclusions of the reliable source documenting its sub-fringe historical status, against the wishes of the person you suggested mediate the dispute, and without reference to any sources suggesting it is anything more than an attempt to provide cover for those who have benefitted financially from giving terrible advice in the corridors of power. I strongly suspect you consider yourself completely neutral and moderately well informed on the topic, but the reality is that astroturfed propaganda has generally resulted in a majority of people who disagree with the vast consensus conclusions of the peer reviewed secondary economic literature. Does saying so demonstrate a lack of objectivity? Does it demonstrate a lack of objectivity to point out that far more people than professional scientists disbelieve anthropogenic climate change because of astroturfed propaganda? Or to point out that far more medical doctors than laypeople in the US think universal healthcare coverage such as the next 19 most wealthy countries enjoy saves money and extends lifespans, because of astroturfed insurance company propaganda? Or to point out that a half century ago many if not most people thought cigarettes had health benefits because of corporate propaganda? If someone is clearly editing as if austerity is just, decent, and good, why does calling them an austerity advocate demonstrate a lack of objectivity?

I would love to have the issue mediated, but have tried before, and my opponents have never agreed, because they know I am editing correctly according to our reliable source criteria, and so they would likely not prevail. EllenCT (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT has gone rogue and acted against consensus with her latest edit. It also appears she created a separate article for secular stagnation even though no consensus was reached. Her talk comments are a combination of misrepresented sources, outright lies and nonsense and her behavior is getting more irrational. She has a history of this type behavior and unless she is cut short she will once again waste everyone else's time and we will have seriously disrupted article.Phmoreno (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phmoreno is referring to [73] and [74] which were repeatedly requested by Marek on Talk:Economic stagnation. EllenCT (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for splitting the article. EllenCT's motive was to put the Economic stagnation#Internationally following the lede. The Internationally section is disputed content and is not correctly portrayed in relation to economic stagnation. EllenCT was told before (above and by me on Talk) that her proposed article arrangement wasn't acceptable. EllenCT is desperately trying to push her POV and is posting fake reasons for her edits along with making false claims about sources, both on Economic stagnation and Economic growth.Phmoreno (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article was repeatedly requested on the talk page, and no substantive reasons to refrain from doing so have been stated. In the interest of compromise, the contents have been duplicated at the end of the article and a citation has been requested for the unsupportable claim that secular stagnation theory has "usually" instead of "always" been proven wrong. @Phmoreno: do you object to the per-capita instead of per-country representation of growth in the Economic stagnation#Internationally section? If so, why? Please strike your false claims of misrepresenting sources because you are unable to substantiate them. EllenCT (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about warnings of "secular stagnation have always been proven wrong" is not true. Japan has been in secular stagnation for almost 25 years. Also, I am going discuss a journal article related to stagnation discussing the "break after 1910", which the authors called "the onset of persistent secular stagnation". As for the section Economic stagnation#Internationally, neither of the sources discusses economic stagnation and inclusion of this section is synthesis. Phmoreno (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of making false statements and misrepresenting sources. Several times I compared your edits with the citations and not only did I find them to be inaccurate but in case of the one of the papers you cited in Economic growth, the conclusion was the opposite of your cherry-picked statement. Most recently see Volunteer Marek's comment at the end of Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular stagnation theory "disputed neutrality". There numerous other examples. Phmoreno (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of EllenCT's reviews:

EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Wikipedia. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior. I could not have said it better.VictorD7's comment

Phmoreno (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT is still making changes against Talk and under false pretenses. Is there anything that can be done to stop this?Phmoreno (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that VictorD7 was the recipient of Phmoreno's earlier boomerang linked in my first reply above. EllenCT (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is no excuse for your unacceptable behavior, of which there is a long history. I'm very disappointed that Wikipedia tolerates Internet trolls like you.Phmoreno (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think editors feel about your repeated attempts to prevail in content disputes using baseless allegations to administrators, instead of learning our reliable source criteria and neutrally summarizing the consensus of the peer reviewed academic literature reviews on the subjects you edit? It's beyond disappointing; it's an affront to the quality of the encyclopedia and tends to bring the project into disrepute when third parties in the media see such bias. It shows a lack of WP:COMPETENCE at best and is clearly disruptive. EllenCT (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EllenCT:

• "...leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them..."
• "...sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk."
• "She's also thoroughly incompetent..." Phmoreno (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary for me to dignify these allegations with any further response. I urge administrators to examine the links provided by both sides if there is any question about what is going on again here. EllenCT (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT is an admittedly biased editor who sees the world through the lens of income inequality. As VictorD7 and others have commented, she has poor knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter and is incapable of putting together a well reasoned and truthful narrative to support her POV. Therefore, she resorts to disruptive edits to keep content which she thinks opposes her POV off of Wikipedia.Phmoreno (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Users Involved: Unreal7 (mainly) and In ictu oculi (briefly)
Dear administrators and other fellow Wikipedians. Before I begin, I just want to let you know that I an not trying to be a cry baby or wimp. However, I have gotten impatient with Unreal7, and would like administrator assistance. I first got involved with the user, here, when I was leaving a comment to them about an inappropriate comment about In ictu oculi in the requested move reasoning, and posted a comment on their talk page about it as well. I tried to be nice and civil with them, avoiding drama. I again, bump into Unreal7 when I see them make another inappropriate comment about IIO here. I made a comment to Unreal7 (again) here and made a comment on their talk page here. I was very patient and did not want them getting in trouble. I told them if I saw them make any inappropriate comments again, I would report them. Now, they crossed out my comment on Talk:Jack Aitchison (footballer, born 2000), with them saying Absolutely not. We never, ever use "British footballer". I am very patient, but this time they blew it. I don't know If I am just in an angry mood tonight, or if they really are making a fuss, but their inappropriate behavior at requested moves has me concerned. I have warned them, and they have not listened to me. Can an administrator deal with them and warn them? I would really appreciate it. Cheers, CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 00:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal7 has been here long enough by now to know that modifying or editing another editor's comments, apart from specific violations or policy, is a no go zone. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal7 did not follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks guideline, which states Comment on content, not on the contributor. Unreal7 did not do that, and made inappropriate comments about In ictu oculi. According to WP:TPO, Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Again, Unreal7 did not follow guidelines. They stroked out my comment on Talk:Jack Aitchison (footballer, born 2000) on the requested move, currently going on. They have not listened to my warnings. They need to be warned by an administrator, that's all I am saying. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 03:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I have also encountered this user striking other people's comments on talk pages as well, for example [75], and then reinstating the change at [76] after I had reverted. I left a message about it at User talk:Unreal7#Striking another user's comment. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

. I've unstriken the comments and left a note for Unreal7. Unfortunately, this seems to be the result of an ongoing dispute at RMs between the users mentioned. This probably will require some form of dispute resolution as it appears to be escalating.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with a mama's boy like me and doing a warning. That's all I requested. However, If I see any more WP:PA about In ictu oculi, you will see me here again. Thanks! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 15:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Boeing C-17 Globemaster III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor BilCat has repeatedly reverted properly formatted and referenced changes to several aircraft articles claiming that they are not in proper format yet they are consistent with other articles. In one case he claimed that the changes "took up too much space" and "were too much trouble to manage". Request that he be removed from any further editing of these articles.Bob80q (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of what you're referring to and links demonstrating there is consensus for these changes otherwise this sounds like an ordinary WP:Content dispute which needs to be resolved via some ordinary method of WP:Dispute resolution and that doesn't include ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW failing to notify an editor [77] that you've brought them to ANI as both the big orange box when you're editing and the big red text before you edit tell you to is never a good sign when you bring a complaint to ANI. But still I've done it for you. Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Operators section of aircraft articles already uses a style. When Bob began editing WP several years ago, he decided implement his own style, which clashes with the style that's already there. Originally, I attempted to change to the existing format, but he would just change it back. After a few failed discussions, he and his IP socks kept at it, so I just revert him now. If he just uses the style that already exists on those pages, there won't be a problem. In fact, he did do that a week or so ago, and I thanked him for it. He responded by changing it to his preferred style. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That'll teach ya to heed the old saying: "Never wake the sleeping dogs!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the beginnings of an edit war at Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. Bob80q and Bilcat have each reverted the article either once or twice. If there is any talk page consensus on how this data ought to be shown, that would make a difference. Otherwise the steps of WP:Dispute resolution should be followed. Bob80q opened this complaint saying that BilCat 'reverted properly formatted changes' but that needs to be shown. Proper according to what? EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While this hasn't been discussed on the C-17 page, it has been discussed elsewhere, but they were not conclusive. The main issue is the style of the operators list, and whether the USAF section should follow the same layout as the other operators in the list at Boeing C-17 Globemaster III#Operators, or follow Bob's own style, which is confusing and difficult to follow. Granted, it's a minor issue overall, but I prefer consistency. No one else seems to care. - BilCat (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've had to use null edits to add edit summaries to rollback edits on the C-17 page twice since yesterday evening. There seems to have been a change to the Wiki software which is clashing with Twinkle, as has been discussed at Village Pump. The issue won't let me add an edit summary some of the time. - BilCat (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really concerned by Bob's comments here, as they amount to personal attacks against me. His comments that "his talk page states that he is "having health issues" so perhaps he is not in proper frame of mind at present" are quite disturbing and uncalled for. - BilCat (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the post wondered whether WP could be sued. Honestly, this running around like the sky is falling anytime anyone uses any one of twenty words connected to the law is now way past ridiculous. EEng 09:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If the alleged legal threat was the only issue, I think an unblock would be in order. As EEng notes, there was no legal threat, just speculation. Silly and unhelpful speculation, but not a legal threat. WP:TROUTing please for Amakuru, whose complaint misrepresented the IP's statement -- and for Dennis Brown, who should have checked more thoroughly before blocking.
  However, I just took a peek at the IP's recent contributions, and see that thy have been engaged in a prolonged content dispute, in which the IP's actions included blanking as 45KB article[79] with the edit summary Deleted Everything by HistoryofEthiopia and EthiopianHabesha since they have decided to Attack this Article. I'm not particularly inclined to unblock an editor who behaves like that ... but the block is for the wrong reason. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Did you read the comment? Do you really not see the intimidation there? Check my recent contribution history[80] and you will see that I don't interpret good-faith expressions as intimidation. HighInBC 16:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

User with declared conflict of interest (son of subject) is edit-warring over original research/trivia/puffery in article in William L. Uanna. See [81] [82] [83]. We've been down this road before both here at ANi and on article talk page, going back literally years, and editor is deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-land. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I posted some comments on the earlier ANI thread. I think you guys are being too bitey. I oppose the topic ban for now. We haven't engaged CIC7 all that constructively earlier or now, so we still have room to do so. COIN seems like overkill. Figureofnine also is edit warring in my opinion, reverting 3x in less than a day[84][85][86] and seems to be wp:owning the article to some extent over its history. Figureofnine, could you ease up a bit? CIC7 seems to have some good resources to bring to the article, and we should accomodate him to the extent we can, working with him to fix issues with his contributions that are incompatible with our approach to content. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I favor a topic ban for now but only as it applies to the article itself, not to the article talk page. It's his behavior in the article proper that is objectionable. Lastly I agree with the IP that there is an WP:OWN situation. CIC7 created the article and has dominated the editing of it. The last two of his five reverts yesterday were reinstatement of unsourced trivia removed by another editor[87][88]] including "One piece of advice his mother gave his new bride Bonnie shortly after they were married in 1948 was 'Keep him out of the sun, he turns black.' " I think that after six years this editor is aware that such material is not acceptable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• I don't understand the problem with the first Kennedy diff above (I didn't check the second one). It looks like it restored some reasonable content about a well documented issue at the time (whether Kennedy's Catholicism would divide his loyalty between the Church and the US). It mentioned a speech that Kennedy intended to give at the Dallas Trade Mart, and quoted from a civil rights announcement. Those could have used citations--is that the issue? It took about 2 seconds to verify each with web searches[89][90] so I don't see it as a basis for banning.

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

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

Since your own contribs are hidden by your editing logged out, it's hard for me to determine the extent to which you may have edited this article yourself, apart from this[91] less than constructive edit restoring crap to the article, and with an inaccurate edit summary as the ANI was two years ago. What is the user name that you utilize when not trolling the drama boards? Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hawkeye7, readers have a right to expect that articles not be written in collaboration with the subject or their offspring; I note that the original GA nom failed because of OR and also that this editor has edit-warred to keep OR and puffery in the article, which you made no effort to remove, over an extended period of time this week. I see that he was blocked for that. I note too also that his efforts to place a reference to his father being murdered, sourced to a fictional film and without a shred of evidence beyond that, also did not bother you one bit.[92]

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

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

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

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

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

I can understand someone else weighing the subtleties differently and deciding "nah", but the wikilawyering and confrontation that I see from Figureofnine (and now CTA) are what I described earlier as WP:OWN. In any case, CTA removed it again calling it "garbage".[93] I think that's excessive and shows a lack of objectivity on CTA's part.

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

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

WP:OWN? The subject's son created the article and [94] is responsible for four out of ten edits to the article on his dad. Hawkeye7 has another 23% of edits. Figureofnine 10%. No other editors on the page to speak of. I've added two tags and made one edit. Your continual false statements are disruptive, so please stop. Yes, this article passed GA despite violating site policies on sourcing. If I had a nickel for every time that happened I could probably start my own Wikipedia. This article should have been speedily failed, since the majority of footnotes go to documents uploaded to Commons, and I've commenced a community reassessment. Mr. 50, judging from how you have tenaciously disrupted a simple COI situation with false statements, personal attacks and trolling I assume that the user name you're not disclosing has quite the colorful history. Coretheapple (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban of User:CIC7

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

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

• CIC7 has a WP:COI wrt to the article William L. Uanna [95]
• CIC7 is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, by publishing original research in relation to his father [96]
• CIC7 has been warned repeatedly about WP:NOR, WP:COI and other relevant policies, by editors who have explained the constraints and offered suggestions on how to publish the information in ways that could be used in Wikipedia
• This was the subject of an ANI discussion in August 2014: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#William_L._Uanna
• Many editors appreciate CIC7's intesrest in the topic and have tried to help CIC7 to contribute constructively
• Despite these long-standing warnings, CIC7 has been edit-warring in May 2016 to insert unsourced original research into the article wrt which he has a COI: [97], [98], [99]

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

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

• Support provided it's clearly understood that edits like this are encompassed by the topic ban. Not sure it is, as drafted. Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coretheapple: my intention was that edits like that should be clearly covered by the ban, because if we only ban from the one article then content about William L. Uanna could be splatted across a whole range of articles. What I didn't want to do was to ban CIC7 from for example editing an article about somewhere his father lived to add content unrelated to his father. I hope that it is clear enough that adding such material such as that in your example to any another article would fall within the narrow construction of "related", but I am open to any suggestions for alternative wording to make things clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Should 66.102.157.201 be blocked?

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

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

The resolution is simple: Remove the page or we do this forever :)[117]

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

And now, add personal attacks to the list. [118] Zhanzhao (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Inspired by a reference in Oshwah's discussion-close comments, I've created Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about whining. Just a stub at this point, please contribute. EEng 02:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA!!! That almost made me spit beer out of my mouth! That's funny as hell :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, I like whining! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Nope, less is more. I think it's perfect the way it is. --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I wasn't expecting such enthusiasm. But just you wait... soon some killjoy will come by to tell us that there's no place for humor in serious discussions.

EEng 08:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BMK (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a passing comment on this deservedly-closed thread, previous versions of this user's userpage contained the declaration that "This user is Manx" with no apparent issue. Just saying. ‑ Iridescent 19:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is about this user changing a particular sentence in the lead portion of the article, and has done so several times now: [146] [147] and [148]. It's merely about changing the meaning of the sentence to imply something that is not true, and I've repeatedly mentioned this in my edit summaries which reverted the change, plus I've brought it to the article's talk page. I've even invited the user to participate in the discussion over at their talk page, but the user has not made any effort to communicate on any of the talk pages (including mine) regarding their edit, and just keeps restoring their version in the article. I'm not thinking they even get that they change the meaning of the sentence. As I point out on the article's talk page, their change could also be seen as a BLP violation (as Selena Gomez is not part of the production team called Rock Mafia, which may be implied with their version of the sentence), and is the reason for my reverts in the article.

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

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

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

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

I have looked again at the IP's most recent edit [149], and I failed to notice the phrase "along with", which had been in previous versions of the article (which the IP had removed in other edits). There is a different meaning to the sentence with that phrase in it than without. It separates Gomez from Armato and James in terms of the sentence structure, thus not "collectively" putting Gomez in with the other two as part of the production team Rock Mafia. I restored that IP edit to the article, and will retract the warning I gave the IP. I will say that it's not the best way to express the song's writing credits in the article, and can leave others (even myself) to improve it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]