{{Infobox classical composer}} was deleted as "…redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Unused…" last December, after a short but unanimous discussion which was open for eight days. It was recently recreated, out of process (e.g. no deletion review), and my speedy nomination (under {{db-g4}}) was contested, so I raised another TfD discussion. SarekOfVulcan has now speedily closed that, after less than 24 hours, alleging bad faith (and perhaps believing the false claims including that "a week ago, [I] deleted it almost without discussion" and that "the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper"). I refute the "bad faith" accusation (there are and will be unfounded ad hominem comments from those with opposing views), and suggest that the community should be allowed to discuss the matter properly. (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't believe any false claims - I reviewed the history and previous discussions before closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes your action and comment all the more inappropriate Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the template was deleted in the past in a TfD decision and then randomly recreated, you are fully allowed to start another TfD on it, per past consensus. Sarek, you are completely out of line here. Silverseren^C 22:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Silverseren^C 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't lie about closures, Andy. The current discussion was very obviously a speedy keep. Silverseren^C 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first comment was the sensible and correct one. With only nine comments, mostly from members of the canvassed projects, in around 21 hours, it's hardly a speedy keep, and that was not the disputed reason given for closure, as I point out above. I have not lied. What makes you suppose otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy -- please -- this was exactly the sort of behavior that got you banned for a year here. Let's not do this again; it's time-wasting drama and completely unnecessary. We actually have a workable compromise infobox! How about working with us in the Composers and Classical music Wikiprojects as colleagues rather than enemies? Honestly, it's possible. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not. Why don't you address the issue I raise, rather than attempting to smear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for evidence which confirms the veracity of my initial report here. An additional diff of relevance shows that {{Infobox musical artist}} has been the Terry Riley article since 2 December 2006 (yes, 2006!). It has caused no reported issues in that time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may confirm what you reported, but what you didn't report is highly relevant as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the evidence, I believe Sarek's close of the TfD was absolutely proper. I would not necessarily say it was a "bad faith" nomination, but reverting a template's use after that template has received extensive discussion and then immediately nominating for deletion on the basis of the template not being used can give that impression. That said, there was adequate consensus to keep the template regardless of whether the nomination was in good or bad faith. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITYM "reverting a template's use when that template has been improperly recreated after a TfD decision to delete it…". Since when do we close TfDs with only nine comments, mostly from members of canvassed projects, in under 24 hours? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recreation was the result of extensive discussion. Just because it had been deleted earlier doesn't make future recreation under these circumstances improper. Merely calling it "improper" doesn't make it so. And TfDs are often closed with much fewer than nine comments, and closed early when the consensus is obvious. After all, the original TfD in which the template was deleted only received 2 comments. Rlendog (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI timing

Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban

It appears that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has issues mischaracterizing matters that he brings to AN or comments on here and this can mislead editors reviewing his requests. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and above. It has also been found by Arbcom in the past that Pigsonthewing is unwilling to follow the Wiki way of doing things 1 and mischaracterizes matters 2. What would the community think of either banning PoTW from commenting at AN/ANI or banning his participation in TFD/MicroFormat discussions (those appear to be the source of most of his disputes)? MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose banning PotW from Microformat discussions, as that's where he's done some of his best work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about the AN/ANI ban if it turns out that his problem is in discussing his project with the wider wiki community? MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, since this is a subthread of an ANI he's raised about me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I quite agree PotW needs to be banned from something, possibly from the whole project, and I definitely don't think the problem can be localized simply by banning him from some forms of AN participation. His problems are far more general and spread far more widely. The general issue here is that PotW seems to be fundamentally unable to let go of a matter. Once he's become fixated on something – be it the birth date of some semi-notable radio moderator, or the question of what infobox to put into classical composer articles – he will continue keeping that dispute alive across any number of pages, literally for years, confronting any number of other editors about it, fighting out spin-offs of spin-off conflicts through one venue after another, and just never let go, no matter how obvious it is that there is no consensus for his position. Right now, he's at another spin-off dispute at Template talk:Infobox classical composer, and is again accusing some other guy of "dishonesty" [1] over yet another side issue. Since all these disputes somehow indirectly appear to be related to his great project of infoboxes and "microforms", and since this pattern of conflict-seeking seems to be a very very deeply entrenched personality matter, I am afraid we will have little choice but to either put up with it and let him continue everywhere, or ban him from the project completely. My choice would be the second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• My choice unfortunately is also the second. This is a collaborative project, and his attitude is profoundly anti-collaborative, at least every time I've run into him. I wish I could grant him an "a-ha!" moment where he sees that he's actually the cause of his own problems, by making war on people rather than collaborating with them, but my hopes are slim. I'm open to other ideas on how to proceed. It's a shame because he's so talented at what he does. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I have read much of the previous controversies, I didn't participate. While I have no simple solution, I have to say that I have reservations about this one. I'm afraid we would just exporting the drama to another venue where the pattern would start all over again. Unless there is something particular about this board that causes all the problems, banning him from here isn't likely to solve the problem. A bit strong, but this is akin to the police giving a homeless person a one way bus ticket to another city. You move the problem to a different place but it doesn't go away. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, this seems like that awkward situation where instead of a topic ban, the community believes a site ban is the only way to end the disruption. Should I just copy this over to WP:AN or can I find an uninvolved admin to close it here on ANI? MBisanz ^talk 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 editors" <> "the community". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, I didn't say I was ready to site ban him, I said "I have no simple solution" (banning == simple). Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. At to site banning, I remain neutral, not committed. I still have no alternative to ANI banning, but as I stated, feel it would only serve to push the problem to a different board. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Hang on a minute; this is starting to take on the appearance of a witch-hunt. Have you actually looked at the diffs Matthew presented? They are from years ago - the ArbCom links are from 2007 and 2005! The more recent ones seem to be cataloguing Andy's attempts to raise problems that he perceives here, and getting short shrift from editors who don't understand a technical issue. Now I'll admit that I've "crossed swords" with Andy on technical issues, but that has never gone beyond robust discourse. On the other hand I've also found him most amenable to collaborative work - see how WP:HLIST was developed for an example. His technical skills and understanding are valuable to the project, and we need to be looking for ways of helping established editors overcome problems and concentrate on constructive work, not crude bans and blocks in these circumstances. I see that WP:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing dates from 2005. Has any other RFC occurred in the intervening 7 years? --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be interested in how you explain thatthis, this, or this, from this month, show evidence of POTW's committment to, and participation in, the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions? MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you insist. I've already commented at Template_talk:Infobox_classical_composer#Dishonest_comment_in_TfD_summary_box that Andy is expressing himself too forcefully for my taste, but you have to admit that he was right that the {{tfd end}} comment "delete, but decision was later reversed by deleting admin because of lack of notification of interested parties and discussion" simply did not accurately characterise the closing admin's subsequent comments: "Reviewing the debate, it looks like the main issue was that it wasn't being used. I actually moved it to "Wikipedia:Infobox composer/draft" to allow for further discussion, and to preserve the page history. It was subsequently deleted there by another admin. I will restore it to User:Ravpapa/Infobox composer. I will leave it up to you to decide what to do with it after that". I think Antandrus ought also to bear some responsibility for the unnecessary warring going on there.
• I'm sorry, but given that Future Perfect at Sunrise made a controversial block of Andy quite recently, he really isn't the best person to be issuing warnings and threats of ArbCom on Andy's talk page. Are there really no other uninvolved admins around to talk to Andy in a less confrontational manner? Nobody is going to condone Andy going over the top in response, but do you seriously believe that "I strongly recommend you stop issuing warnings over content disputes in which you are involved, especially while discussion is ongoing on talk pages; and stop ignoring the findings of the RfC which found that systematic removal of infoboxes would be disruptive. Your unwarranted and out-of-process block of me regarding Hawkins resulted in you being criticised and subsequently undoing it; and the topic ban proposal which it led to twice found no consensus." is so far out of court as to warrant a ban?
• Are you seriously putting forward this: ""If this is the reason for your insistence…" - It isn't. Also, your proposal is both technically and logistically unworkable. Any local consensus in the classical music project is, as has been pointed out many times, not least in the outcome of that project's RfC, and core Wikipedia policy, unenforceable in articles. Matters regarding claims of optimal human readability are best determined through measurement such as those as carried out by our accessibility and usability projects, not the asserted aesthetic preferences of individual editors." as evidence of a breach of the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions?
• You've always struck me as being a very fair and responsible editor, and I'm willing to give way if I'm proven wrong, but are you sure that an insistence on banning a productive editor is the best course right now? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My first interaction with POTW was over three years ago here. Since then, I've seen him crop up time and time again pushing his POV on microformat codes by mischaracterizing other people's words when they disagree with them or curtly insulting them for not understanding him. I've seen him at protected template requests declaring something is horribly broken and needs to be changed, when it is just his opinion that a certain format should be used. I've seen him here announcing that someone is grievously violating policy, when they simply disagree with his technical opinion. Looking back further before my first interaction with him, I see a nearly decade long track record of an inability to communicate with people and accept that consensus of the Wiki community is what matters for decision-making, not experts (as he claims in the third diff) or other people with particular agendas that they wish to import into the Project. The acerbic tone he does it with and his inability to temper it over such a long period of time of feedback is what has convinced me a ban is appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I had forgotten about this conversation where he kept insisting on getting a bot approved while refusing to link to consensus for the bot task. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – all the sanctions suggested are completely ludicrous. The vast majority of Andy's edits since his return years and years ago from a 1-year block have been positive and uncontroversial. And the fuss about composer infoboxes is a storm in a teacup as the classical music project seem to insist on (a) no infoboxes; (b) the retention of a specific infobox not to use. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion. I think a site ban is too harsh a punishment. I do think a topic ban from all info box related discussions is warranted.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Ridiculous proposal. Show us something recent and relevant. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any sanctions that prevent the disruption caused by PotW. Since he is right, it follows that the silly people who actually write the articles but who disagree with him are wrong, and must be opposed, literally for years. More evidence would probably be needed to achieve a sanction, but I am recording my opinion in hope that PotW will take the hint and leave content creators alone. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not make this a "content creation" battle, not least because that would be as fallacious (and damaging to the community) as it always is. Interaction problems here have nothing to do with what namespace one chooses to work in most often. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you seen the underlying issues? Some content builders have chosen to not decorate articles on classical composers in a manner that complies with PotW's standard. The content builders are then harrangued literally for years. Of course it's done with all the CIVIL boxes ticked, and there are plenty of helpful links to WP:OWN and other pages intended to poke the content builders. It's totally unnecessary, and it drives content builders away. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I'm saying is that it isn't healthy to frame it as "Andy versus content builders" as if a) he doesn't build content and b) his interaction with "content builders" is universally negative. "Andy versus the composers project on infoboxes" is a far more accurate frame for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm finding it a little extreme to be suggesting this. Ok, so I haven't had a lot of interaction with the user in question, but from my perspective, it seems that some people now want to persecute (I do not intend any insult with this word... it may be a bit strong, but I'm tired and can't think of a better word at the moment) a user who is perhaps trying to push his own point to forcefully (it seems, with regularity), or maybe someone who takes WP:BOLD or WP:IAR a little too far. But banning him, either from topics or the project, doesn't really help, seeing as the user has also demonstrated very helpful abilities. A ban seems to me to be simply a way of saying "go away, I don't like you," which doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate way of resolving issues like this. This isn't to say I endorse the manner in which PotW tends to pursue his opposers, but rather that I feel the proposed actions are not the right sort of action to take. Brambleclawx 03:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It disturbs me that so many admins seem to be willing to sweep the problems created by PotW under the carpet simply because he is highly productive in other places. I hope that this discussion will not result in no action being taken to curtail PotW's actions. It would be akin to endorsing his negative behavior from the admin board. Do we want to send the mesaage that as long as you are valuable in some places we'll tolerate disruptive behavior in other places? Further, as far as I can tell PotW sees nothing wrong with any of his tactics, and they show no signs of stopping. This pattern of disruptive behavior has been going on for years, and is only likely to continue. If nothing is done here and now, then ANI is only likely to get more future complaints.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I'm not seeing much the admins can do at this point. There is nothing immediately blockable, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus for any topic bans. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh, I re-emerge from inactivity today because I'm about to get auto-demopped, and lo and behold, POTW is back on ANI again. Why am I not surprised? For heaven's sake, people, I took this guy to ArbCom many years ago over the classical music infobox debacle, and here he is again, causing trouble over the exact same topic because he thinks he can get away with trolling the exact same people because time has passed. Last time he got banned for a year over this. Can we please, for the love of god, topic-ban him at least this time? If not from micro-formats and his beloved boxen, then at least from anything classical music related. I think I speak for everyone who edits these articles when I say that we are sick to our back teeth of POTW, who has caused no end of grief. He is not doing this in good faith; he is doing this to provoke and because he is simply incapable of giving up on a fight. This is the very definition of tendentious editing. It's beyond farcical that a year-long ban from ArbCom was not enough to keep him away from this area. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The year-long ban was beyond farcical. Andy is robustly arguing for conventions commonplace, uncontroversial and commonplace across the majority of wikipedia but opposed by a segment of "everyone who edits these articles"; think owners. I'm absolutely convinced he is acting in the very best of faith and deplore your assertion otherwise. I know that Andy sees the connection between regular data elements embodied in infoboxen and metadata / semantic web uses of wikipedia content. It's more than depressing that the reaction to a person who continues to argue against a point favoured by a small group is to seek to exclude that person. Actually, bluntly, it's chilling. Am I to expect that if I support Andy's arguments I will find myself labelled tendentious and a candidate for a site or topic ban? Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is defined in terms of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; this just does not apply here. Neither do I see "frustrate[d] proper editorial processes and discussions", although I'm sure that you're personally a bit frustrated that he just won't let it drop. That's not the same thing, at all. Oppose. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban part 2

From anything classical music related, as per my above post. [2]. Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This to me would be the bare minimum response that can and should be done. Otherwise we may need to bring PotW back before arbcom for going back to his old ways.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I've been looking at the background to the classical music infobox dispute and it didn't take many minutes to find this sort of edit, where the date of birth, age, genre, and years active were removed by replacing the previously adequate infobox with inferior information. If this is typical of the problems Andy is complaining about, we should be encouraging him to do more in this area, not removing him from the topic so that those sort of damaging edits can be made unchallenged.

• That's a highly cherry picked comment. One can easily add several examples of infoboxes Andy Mabbett has added that are factually inaccurate and stripped of essential nuance. See the Marian Anderson article history for example.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cherry picked"?? Well what about this one then? which removed genre, instruments, and labels - he is famous as a minimalist and yet that's gone from the infobox which is supposed to give an overview at a glance. Are you prepared to defend that as well as the previous one?
• Or this one? where we lost Scott Joplin's place of birth, place of death, years active and the fact that he was known for ragtime? or are those the sort of things you think visitors to his page wouldn't be looking for?
• Cherry picked, indeed. How about you strike that ad hominem garbage and start taking in an interest in the actual articles? Those two diffs above need reverting to restore the useful information, and you could do it as easily as I. --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And I might as well call you on your smear of Andy above. This is how the Marian Anderson looked after Andy replaced the picture with an infobox. Take a look at it. Just what is "factually inaccurate" there? I'm completely agnostic on whether to have an infobox or not, but even I can see that your claim is baseless. Wouldn't you also agree it is a little bit rum to be accusing Andy of "stripping of essential nuance" while you are defending others who replace one infobox with another containing even less information? Who's doing the stripping of essential nuance here? Or is Scott Joplin's association with ragtime an inessential nuance, perhaps. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My qualms over the infobox at the Anderson article involve the description of the voice as a musical instrument. An instrument by definition is something non-biological outside of the body which is used to make music. A singer is never refered to as an instrumentalist. A singer is called a vocalist. As for your other complaints, I am not here to defend others actions which I may or may not agree with. I have not edited the Joplin article or contributed to it in any significant way. I also don't have it on my watchlist. Those issues should be discussed at that article. 4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The vast majority of our articles on musical artists treat vocals as an "instrument" for the sake of consistency. The argument that this is somehow "inaccurate" doesn't carry any water at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That kind of attitude is exactly why I dislike infoboxes. You illustrated nicely how factually inaccurate content can be spread encyclopedia wide for the sake of uniformity. Who cares if it's wrong information as long as it can be shoved into a box? Go to any School of Music and you will find a clear division of performance tracks, one for instrumentalists and one for vocalists. Wikipedia should strive to mirror academic categorizations. Further, one could easily point out errors within other infoboxes to nitpick over. This is just one example of how the musical artist infobox has issues. 4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The "wrong information" is just your viewpoint. People are rarely that easily categorised. Was John Lennon a vocalist or an instrumentalist? Was Louis Armstrong a trumpeter or a vocalist? and so on. Take a look at the sleeve notes of most modern albums - the artists often contribute vocals as well as the instruments that fit your definition with no clear division of performance. Wikipedia has no need whatsoever to mirror academic categorisations when that gets in the way of presenting useful information. You are right that there are issues with the musical artist infobox, and there are similar issues with as the classical composer infobox as well. Why are you so keen to rid the area of someone who is intent on making the best presentation of information when an infobox is used? You still haven't replied to my question about whether you support the removal from infoboxes of vital statistics such as date of birth and age, as well as crucial information such as genre and years active. What's your answer? Yes or no? --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What an odd response. If someone sings professionally they are a vocalist. If someone plays an instrument they are an instrumentalist. If someone does both than they are both a vocalist and an instrumentalist. Lennon and Armstrong would obviously be considered both, and the infoboxes on their articles should be designed to reflect that in a clear way. This can be done without placing "vocals" under the subheading of musical instrument as it currently is. On a side note, I agree that crucial information can and should remain in an infobox when an infobox is used. Reguardless, my opinions on that matter are not pertinent to this conversation. My problem with PotW is that whenever the classical music projects have expressed the difficulties the musical artist infobox often causes when utilized on classical musician articles he has repeatedly ignored our concerns. Rather than helping us design a more suitable infobox, he has insisted on continuing to use an infobox that has created factual inaccuracies across many articles. The result has been edit wars across many articles and unproductive conversations that repeat the same arguements over and over for literally years. It's frankly annoying as hell and a waste of everyone's time. I personally would like to see a more friendly infobox designer approach the composer/opera/classical/G&S/CCM/and Wagner projects to help us design some infoboxes which would address the concerns of the various projects. It would be most helpful. That said, I am not a proponent of every article having an infobox. If all the info in the box is the dob, dod, and occupation than it's a rather pointless redundancy in the article in my opinion. Infoboxes are useful when they contain summation of facts and details beyond what is obviously apparent in the very first sentence of the lead.4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the clarification, and I suspect we may not be too far apart now. I certainly agree that not every bio needs an infobox. We also agree that an individual could be a vocalist and an instrumentalist, but how do you think that is best presented in an infobox (assuming that we might agree it is pertinent info)? The simplest way is to mimic album covers, and put something like "Instruments: vocals, guitar". I understand that you object to that as factually inaccurate, and yet almost all of our audience would understand perfectly what we intended it to mean. Sometimes we have to trade-off precision for précis when we try to cram information into a small space like an infobox. That is where I think you're having disagreements with Andy. Is it possible that there is no "good solution" to the problem we're discussing? Perhaps what you have is a simple disagreement about which imperfect infobox is least worse for the job? If you look back at the example diffs I adduced above, can you not concede that Andy is no more wrong than anybody else who is picking an infobox to use? I understand that you feel frustrated that Andy does not share your preferences in infoboxes, but the encyclopedia does not get improved by silencing everybody who disagrees with you, particularly where they may be at least partially right. I've spent some time looking at the discussions linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines #Biographical infoboxes and I'm not seeing your claims about Andy having any substance there. If I'm looking in the wrong place, then please produce the diffs on which your complaints about Andy rest. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seeing his conduct at Talk:Terry_Riley#Infobox continues to show he doesn't get the community editing process in music articles and has no interest in learning it. I do not dispute that some of his edits are useful, but his usefulness does not outweigh his disruption. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of MoreYschi's comment, I realize I may have sought relief in the wrong forum, I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppport Wikipedia is a big place and PotW's attention is not required everywhere. I see no suggestion that PotW has an interest in classical music apart from attending to infoboxes, and if there is a pressing need for any change in that area, another editor will be available to take up the challenge. I have not been monitoring the situation, but have unintentionally noticed the wasted time and the ill feelings caused when PotW interacts with article developers who disagree with him—it serves no useful purpose and drives away good editors. The long block record and previous cases (like from 2005) show that nothing short of a formal topic ban will be effective in protecting the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A topic ban isn't necessary and in many cases would be counterproductive per RexxS's examples. Talk:Terry Riley#Infobox is instructive indeed, but certainly not in a way which casts a more negative picture on Andy than the other parties present. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose to sustain the legal fiction that WikiProjects do not make policy by fiat. --NYKevin @818, i.e. 18:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rinpoche posted on User:Drmies talk page via a proxy. Could an admin block the initial proxy account for the stardard 5 years and then block the whole range for the same? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I wish you had dropped me a line (I blocked the 81 IP)--if you had, I wouldn't have embarrassed myself! (See section below.) Drmies (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about not notifying you about the ANI thread. I was just about to signoff for the night when I seen that post by Rinpoche and I posted to ANI. I am actually surprised it was coherent as tired as I was. :) Anywho, my apologizes, will definitely make sure all are notified in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we please get evidence (up here, so it doesn't get lost in the discussion) of the harassment? Revdeled is fine: I have magic glasses. I am not aware of it; I apologize if I'm asking for something redundant. I see some oversighted edits but my magic glasses aren't that strong. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You can probably see this: User:FightingMac/Van Gogh "dark" debate. I can't remember what's on it to be honest; he has a habit of attempting to out people. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed community ban for Rinpoche

To ban or not to ban?

Close: leave the section for now since I linked to it in a couple of places.

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

---

Hello all. I'll try to be succinct. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche/Archive. The editor done some bad things, apparently, socked around a bit, and is now IP-ing in what appears to be an attempt to set the record straight. On one of the IP talk pages they were referred to as a banned editor but I see no evidence that they actually were banned, though de facto that seems to be the case; see User talk:81.178.38.169. The user seems to have an urge to contribute though they deny that at the same time; I guess that's typical socking behavior. Right now they're hopping about a bit and got in touch with me (I blocked the 81 IP a little while ago).

What I'd like to know is this. Should we ban the user, or should we not? My gut feeling is that acting as if there is already a ban (and some comments from good-willing but in my opinion overzealous editors on that IP talk page) only antagonizes the editor. Moreover, and I've asked for a second opinion on this, I think that the editor can contribute. We could, for instance, consider the standard offer with a topic ban (on some psychology-related articles) for good measure. Mind you, I have no dog in this fight, only Jimbo's miniature schnauzer: I don't necessarily want to break a lance for this editor, but I always dislike the piling-on that sometimes takes place. I think the editor has something to contribute.

I'm going to drop a couple of notifications in various places and hope for some input that goes beyond the standard "turn de facto ban into real ban". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errm... take a look at the section above this - may be related.. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S**t. Hadn't looked at anything at all yet. Eh, can someone merge this carefully and elegantly? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

King Genovese has been creating non-notable pages and performing occasional copyright infringements, despite being warned to stop several times. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] I think they may need a short block to show that we are serious about our policies on these matters. King Genovese seems to be creating these pages in good faith, but I think their persistent editing against policy requires action to protect the encyclopaedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a friendly but firm notice on his page, telling him to go here before editing any more. Hopefully he will take is seriously and not edit any more, coming here instead. I'm very hesitant to block a user when no talk has been initiated outside of a template and there exists a chance that they are acting in good faith, however, good faith disruption is still disruption. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  They have removed quite a few of their talk page messages, so some of the discussion may have been obscured by that. (I think my diffs above got the most important ones, though.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem appears to be communication or possibly an inability to understand that words won't fix. They are navigating quite well, however, so there may be more to this but I'm going to assume good faith. They left a message on my talk page, I've tried to direct them here and offered more advice on their page about mentoring. They quit adding content. Templates are often not very effective, they look like automated system messages. As is often the case, a personal, friendly but firm message got their attention. I recommend them early and often. If they start back in, a block may be justified to prevent disruption, but wouldn't be appropriate right now since they have stopped. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've joined in and encouraged more talk. Found he was on my watchlist but I can't remember why. (All sorts of things I can't remember appear there - bit like my house...) I'm assuming 'he' from 'King'. Shouldn't really - amongst my hollies I've got one with 'king' in the name that is female and a 'queen' that is male. They seem quite happy about it. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I'm doing everything I can to keep my "block" button in the original packaging, it might be worth something someday. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be related to the Don Cuneo thread above. I've attempted to contact the editor to see if the same person is operating both accounts. Calabe1992 19:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)Was trying to compliment your find and an EC bit me. I notice all of Don Cuneo's contribs fit neatly into the gaps of Kings. Perhaps someone smarter than me can take a look before we get all excited about the coincidences. I don't see any glaring problems here, yet, but good to know. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a placeholder put here so that the thread won't be automatically archived - I am hoping that King Genovese can come over here and comment on this matter. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So this is where the FBI headquarters are. What am I meant to comment, I cant do anything about what you guys say or do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Genovese (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure you can. I think we are all grateful for your efforts to contribute to our crime articles - it's just that we also need you to follow Wikipedia policy while you do it. If you can agree to follow the policies and show that you know how to apply them, then the problem will be solved. So, the $64,000 question: are you willing to check that the pages you create follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also add that you are now part of this community, one of "you guys", so you get to say and do as well. Our concern is that you aren't familiar with the guidelines on adding information about real people, and adding a lot of material without sourcing. A few of us have offered to help get you up to speed on sourcing, so you can properly contribute as part of the community. We are all a little trigger happy when it comes to article on living or deceased people, as it can affect the living when you make strong claims that are potentially inaccurate. The only way we can be sure that they are accurate it to expect solid sourcing, so the standard is pretty high for sources, and articles about people without good sourcing generally get deleted, thus wasting your time. This is why we were trying to help you on your talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Giano appears to have really retired this time, is it acceptable to remove the {{Keep local}} templates from the files he uploaded? This would apply to files uploaded by Giano, Giano II, and GiacomoReturned. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is that Giano expressly asked others to look out for those images, so it's best to leave things as they are. Anyone who wants to copy them (as opposed to move them) to the Commons can do that, if it's not done already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag? What does retirement have to do with it? 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And is there a reason a notification of this discussion wasn't left on his page? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Notice posted. Nobody Ent 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As commons is out of the foundation stated project scope and apparently under the control of a really small clique of editors - we should stop moving any files there - and office action remove the ability to allow uploads to the commons and start keeping all files here so as to limit/totally remove any value commons has moving forward. - Youreallycan 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about the merits of Commons, merely what to do with these files. I don't think anyone's opinion (positive or negative) of Commons is welcome here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, no one gets to own a discussion here. YRC makes a valid point. The people who run commons are not to be trusted. But at present, it's general practice for those bots to move free photos to commons. Is there anything special about these particular photos, that they shouldn't be "shared"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of whether to move X from A to B logically would include the merits of B. Nobody Ent 23:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His retirement (un-huh) doesn't change his edits. Among those was the insistence that those files be kept local. Lacking a good reason to change, they should be left as requested. Resolute 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way things are done currently, there's no justification for "keep local", unless there's a question about whether they are free. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One justification I have heard mentioned is that Commons does not inform the original uploader when the files are nominated for deletion or other important changes are made to the files. There have been instances where uploaders that are not active on Commons have had their files deleted without them being informed, and some acrimony was the result. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Resolute here: the justification for keeping it locally is that's what the uploader requested. It's generally polite to respect the wishes of the uploader unless there's a compelling reason not to. I'm happy to have my free images moved to Commons but it'd be a bit rude for me to disregard the express wishes of someone who didn't want that. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hold on thar, Baba Looey. Since when does the uploader of a photo get to "own" that photo here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say we were required to honor their wishes. Just that it would be courteous. 28bytes (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I really hate, and don't understand, everything about the way we handle "files", throughout the entire project. Not that this statement is particularly relevant here, but if youreallycan gets to rant then so do I!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• While this isn't entirely a rant, I can explain quite simply why Giano (in his various accounts) took to marking his images "keep local". Images that were uploaded to Commons mysteriously got deleted. Some got overwritten by people who uploaded a different (and usually inferior) image. Some got corrupted when there was a drive to change formats, thus adversely affecting featured content on this project. None of this was visible within this project, because it all happened at Commons. Some of the images (like floor plans) that he was revising or that were incomplete got uploaded and then deleted as being out of scope. I don't understand this kneejerk desire to strip this project of its contents just because there's something similar within the WMF umbrella. There are quite a few editors who would rather swim in boiling oil than have to log into Commons. Heck, this project downloads a copy of images from Commons when the image is going to appear on the main page - because Commons doesn't protect them adequately enough.

  This is an attempt to change the English Wikipedia policy on retention of images, done through the back door. Let's not establish a precedent that weakens the ability of this project to maintain its quality, directly or indirectly. Risker (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less worried about mysterious deletions than I am about the active vendetta conducted by a couple of the porn hobbyists there against images uploaded by their critics. I opined in a deletion debate there a while back and first thing you know, lo and behold, the same day or the next a few old images I had uploaded were all of the sudden tagged up by one of the usual suspects there. It was a truly amazing coincidence. Since then, I'm using KEEP LOCAL on everything. Those people are out of control, in my opinion. Under no circumstances should anyone overrule the uploading editor's probably well-justified wishes regarding the keep local tag. Duplicate the piece for Commons if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What were the grounds for deletion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I see it was one file deleted out on a template discrepancy; after being flagged I switched out one template for a more precise one ("PD-work of Soviet government," I recall) and Our Hero deleted it anyway, even though the template was absolutely valid. Other of my uploaded files were merely mentioned in a generally snarky and unspecific comment. It was 100% "payback"... Carrite (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I never interacted with Giano much, but in general I'm not much in favor of messing around with someone else's files; especially when they're not around to address any questions. If it were a matter of improving an article - sure, but I can't fathom that en.wp is so depraved of disk space that there's a need to go about deleting things just for the fun of it. — Ched :  ?  11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly disapprove of this Commons bashing. Anyway, the point here is that the uploader gets to choose whether to upload to Wikipedia or to Commons - except, that is, according to the WP:Image use policy, a gallery of indiscriminate images should be moved to Commons. These images are not AFAIK indiscriminate, so there is no mandate to move them to Commons. There's no prohibition on public domain images at WP. An editor can legitimately upload to both projects, thereby hedging their bets regarding which one will be more infected by deletionists in the future. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I discovered Tryde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has either moved or created tens, possibly hundreds of baronet articles with incorrect page titles. The naming convention for baronets can be found at WP:NCPEER and the relevant part reads:

• Baronets should generally have their article located at the simple name, e.g. George Albu (rather than "Sir George Albu" or "Sir George Albu, 1st Baronet"). However:
  • If the name is ambiguous and the baronetcy is the best disambiguator between the men of that name, use the full style as the article title: Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet (with both prefix and postfix); John Brunner is ambiguous with his father and with John Brunner (novelist).

I left a message at User talk:Tryde#Baronet page moves regarding this and moved the affected articles (not requiring disambiguation) with a summary clearly referencing WP:NCPEER. Despite this, Tryde is in the process of moving every single one back without attempting to explain their actions or even saying why in the move summary. Can anything be done to stop this ongoing disruption please? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently "contributing so massively to this encyclopedia for the last seven years" means you get a free pass for disruption, surely not? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know of atleast '2' pages, that I wish he'd move. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've warned this editor not to continue and I am prepared to block for disruption if they continue. I sincerely hope they take the warning and avoid this. --John (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks John. It's difficult dealing with intransigence such as common name used for baronets is used when the naming conventions say the opposite and they have been made aware of precisely what the naming conventions say. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The second message in this edit accuses a respected university professor of "essentially pedophelia". I am reporting this here, partly because the severity of the attack seems to warrant immediate administrative attention (I would think a revdel is called for), and partly because Erikvcl's previous response to BLP warnings was to say "Your reference to WP:BLP is laughable and irrelevant". Would somebody intervene? Jakew (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His web page links to circumfetish websites and discussion groups. He is not respected in the medical community. He associates with the Gilgal society. He is not an MD. It is odd that you would defend him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikvcl (talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the offending text but cannot revdel it as I am not an administrator. Erik: no matter how you feel about someone, speaking about them like this on Wikipedia is not acceptable. If you do it again - even in talk space - someone will block you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do note you should always remove the info immediately as KG has done. Revdeletion (whether with suppression or not) can only hide entire revisions therefore everything between the time the material was added until it was removed needs to be hidden or suppressed. In case of an extreme BLP violation like effectively calling someone a paedophile, you generally can't go wrong with removing the info. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this defamatory material from the edit history and messaged the offender. I haven't had time to look into the background of this issue or this editor. If there is any hint that they may repeat this they should definitely be blocked indefinitely, in my opinion. --John (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the matter in a little more detail and left a longer message warning them not to repeat this behaviour. If any admin feels I have been too lenient and wishes to block, I won't be offended, but I personally would rather leave this as a final warning for now. --John (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him once already for such behavior, and I'm not encouraged that he won't repeat it, but the final warning should stand. He's here with an agenda and a battleground mentality. --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the victim of his previous attacks, I'm admittedly biased, but I feel this is extremely lenient, too. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise feel that a warning is too lenient. As Laser brain correctly states, this guy has an agenda and a battleground mentality. What's worse, he just plain does not get it: that his beliefs are subordinate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, no matter how heinous he believes his targets to be. Such people don't generally flip over to believing in our civility and editing policies. Ravenswing 22:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his reply to my warning, I am tentatively standing by my warning rather than immediately blocking. I would not regard it as wheel-warring if another more draconian admin wished to block. I would think it evident that the next block would be indefinite if the user repeats the behaviour. I would certainly apply such a block if there is anything similar in the future. --John (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lb here. The signs of he/she not repeating this sort of behaviour aren't good. Last time when they was blocked for fairly similiar behaviour Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive747#Inappropriate administrator conduct, it was clearly explained to them such behaviour was not acceptable, I presume they read it since they started asking for their account to be deleted. While it's true that case concerned an editor (and therefore policies like NPA) rather then the subject of an article, it's hard to imagine someone who still doesn't understand their strong personal opinions of various people aren't relevent is going to 'get it' any time soon. However as Lb and John both said, let's just let the final warning stand, with an indefinite block coming if they repeat similar behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just corrected repeated vandalism on half a dozen articles by someone who is apparently 15 years old and would really, really love to be knighted by the Queen. He has no user page, but his contribs are here. Would someone who knows proper procedure kindly give this kid a warning against continuing his fantasies on Wikipedia article pages? I'm all unsure of how to handle this, so I'm giving you guys a heads up here. Textorus (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have stopped for now. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a level 2 edit test warning, informing them that if they continue it will be considered vandalism. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, please see How to respond to vandalism. Vandals should be reverted and warned, then reported to WP:AIV if they fail to heed the warnings. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Captain. And thanks for the link, DoRD, I will bookmark it for future use. Textorus (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Brighton125's works, mostly because I've introduced teens to Wikipedia contributing. I'm of the view that if not sociopathic, teens can become experts and long-term contributors. I am not sure if Brighton125 wants to be: "Joseph Anker, 1st Duke of Brighton," but maybe a few thoughtful words about how to get there, and some patience will send him on his way, a bit less fantastically? It seems to me, that he should have a chance, and know that others are hovering over. He could become a new user, of course, but if the same pattern continues, (presumably) he'll be easy to recognize as a new duke, prince, HRH, etc. I do wonder if the world of online gaming for kids has inspired some of this. I am considering a creative barnstar that emphasizes the importance of reality and dreams, and the distinction... Comments colleagues? KSRolph (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I put a less menacing message on their talk page, welcoming them and inviting them to ask me anything if they needed. In cases where it isn't obvious and clear vandalism, I agree that a more gentle approach is usually sufficient. No need to bite the little boogers. I know exactly nothing about the subject matter, but it is entirely possible they added this in good faith, correct or otherwise, and no one has said anything here about how this info is utterly impossible, so my ignorance makes me conclude that this isn't a clear case of obvious vandalism. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm always up for learning something new. Regardless, when in doubt, it is better to gently welcome the new editor than to scold them. Then if they screw up, feel free to template away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up Their only contribs now are on their user page. Likely more of a sandbox thing, but I don't see the harm at this time. It would *appear* that their edits were in good faith all along. This is why I always suggest we assume good faith and be careful to not bite the newbs, even when they are making mistakes. Again, being a yank, I'm clueless as to the content and will leave that to more capable hands to determine. While I am assuming good faith here as well, a read of WP:VANDALISM is in order for you Textorus. Calling someone a vandal when it doesn't clearly fit that criteria is a capital offense here. It would also be big of you if you went and offered some help on their talk page, since you called them a vandal in front of god and the Queen here at ANI. That seems fair and then I would call it even. Maybe User:Captain Screebo will help you out, to avoid the much lesser penalty of being put into the stocks for a day. The proper tag would have referred to "unsourced material". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe an admin had deleted something of Brighton125's edits, not seeing great offense myself. If he wants to be the 1st Duke of Brighton, then I still believe a light-spirited barnstar would be just as much fun for him, as if he were stirring up a little imagined-honor mischief. A clever barnstar would call him on it in a kind way, and do no harm. I don't want to offend anyone here, so let us all push ahead with NPOV and assuming good faith. I will drop 'the Duke' a message myself, when I think of something appropriate. KSRolph (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bite me, Dennis Brown, and the high horse you rode in on. The reason I came to this noticeboard instead of confronting the user directly was to get someone to handle the situation in the most appropriate way, whatever that is. Instead, you sling shit and insults at me, an experienced, mature, responsible editor. Who is, btw, strictly a volunteer and not in any way subject to your precious jurisdiction. So in your regal fantasy, go ahead and decree my head be taken off all you like, I'm just laughing at you, man. Textorus (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We all, myself included, have a tendency to throw the word "vandal" around. We all need to be more careful when it comes to new editors, or we limit the pool of future experienced, mature and responsible editors down the road. If my light-hearted suggestion offended you, well I'm sorry, as the goal was to remind us all to be careful and us the proper tags and proper terms, and I simply attempted to say it with a little humor. I thought the dramatic overtones and links to capital punishment and the stocks would have been enough to make that clear, but I guess not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem on No Country for Old Men (film), where JTBX refuses to follow the policy on consensus after he has been invited to discuss possible changes to the plot summary. This follows on his personal attacks on me in the context of a failed complaint he filed against me regarding edits at The Godfather. He never edited on this page before, while I have edited at No Country... for a couple years. I think a reasonable person would have realized that it was not a good time to broaden our interactions. EdJohnston has suggested a interaction ban. Can an admin intervene in some useful way on the page? Perhaps a temporary block would be useful. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: "As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!" -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JTBX&diff=489597300&oldid=489529397 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs)

Ring, when reporting here you are required to notify the user, for example using {{subst:ANI-notice}}, i find your behaviour fairly bad faith, as you do not sign your comments, link to the discussion or follow procedure. [22] [23] [24] CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith? Lack of familiarity with protocol and oversight does not indicate bad faith. Nobody Ent 16:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a user who has been on-wiki since 2008, [25], and made over 1,000 edits, [26], I am a little concerned about their attitude to other editors who wish to improve plot synopsis (cf. The Godfather talk and No Country) and apparent ownership issues. I just happened across this, we all forget to sign from time to time, after four years on-wiki, lack of familiarity with protocol and oversight? Really? It's just an opinion, mind. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see that Captain Screebo has noticed the same things I have. As a long time editor since at least 2008, I have only been blocked once for edit warring for a 24 hour period, for trying to move a page title. I have never been involved in such a large conflict as this one. I don't wish to spend a day writing a gargantuan essay or adding in hyperlinks, So I will keep this as short as possible.

User Ring Cinema and I first met during The Godfather conflict about over a week ago. I tried to edit the plot to better reflect WP:PLOT. However, Ring Cinema reverted my changes and told me to bring it to the talk page. When I managed to make the word count of this draft to about 702 (keep in mind the article summary is 750) it was continually reverted again. I simply did not see, (on the talk page of The Godfather this can be read) any reason for him to be doing this. He claimed it was consensus and this that the other, but it was solely him. [27] If you look through the history, it appears that he was warring with User: Wrath X as well. We were also joined by a third editor, Gareth, a neutral party of sorts who was trying to help. After Gareth and I were editing the draft for a while, Ring added that it was pointless because my draft "had already been rejected" but by whom? Again, you can read all of this on our talk pages.

It was about this time that I decided to look into Ring's user history. It appears the editor makes little contributions other than reverts or slight trimmings, is possibly a WP:SPA, but certainly violates WP:OWN and as mentioned has been blocked numerous times, including for personal attacks against adminstrators. Call me a vigilante, but I decided to take up the case other wise this editor will continually block any meaningful changes to articles. I reported it to the 3RR notice board but it ended in a war of words in which the adminstrator, EdJohnston, (possibly due to time constraints) protected the Godfather page and stated he would nearly sanction me for personal attacks, though I don't think, as you have done, pointing out this user's history or agenda should be considered personal attacks, as well as his falsifications to dress himself up as the victim.

I edited a ton of plots yesterday, which included No Country for Old Men. How did I find this film? Well, when looking up the user's history I saw he was having a conflict with another User:El duderino using the same tactics he used against me, and whom I contacted for support. He may way in on this issue. I edited the plot fo No Country because it was over 700 words, that is it, and actually thought Ring might help if he was still editing the article, but was reverted by Ring 3 times in less than an hour. I had already brought my changes to the talk page and another User is already helping with it, but Ring feels I have violated his article and refused to discuss changes with us, instead creating a new talk section. But he has already a history of conflict on that talk page. The years he talks of editing No Country, are mostly conflicts and reverts with different Users.

I don't think the Godfather article will go anywhere. EJ's protection has ended and I tried to edit but was reverted this time by Gareth, who appears to be taking Ring's side (perhaps being misled) and discussing with him changes behind my back, including this ridiculous message he wrote to Ring, here which I replied to. Apparantly, this is getting serious because I edited an article I am entitled to, and because I contacted others to way in their opinion on the Godfather article. I think it is shameful Ring can run his ownership cabal with Gareth and obscurely edit articles without interference. Its completely against policy, and know that I simply tried to stop this editor after finding out about him. I am not worried about this report aganst me because I feel it can be an avenue for the truth to finally be revealed and to not repeat what happened on the 3RR notice board.

Again, just read the sentence by Gareth, and think for a moment :"As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!"

And you mentioned how he had left a notice without signing or linking, well his disingenuousness shows. He is also trying to create an argument on EJ's page which I have avoided. JTBX (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• STOP This is clearly a content dispute. The talk page on the article clearly shows you have been talking about the issue, both of you a bit snippy but below any threshold for administrative action. You have come to an impasse without outside participation. Take it to WP:DR, not here. All this talk about faith is a sideshow and doesn't belong at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I accused of failing to notify JTBX when I notified him at 10:22 28 April 2012? No, no bad faith on my part. It's true, I've never asked for intervention from an admin. So no bad faith on my part and ownership issues are involved. I've been following the policy on consensus and JTBX doesn't seem to respect it. Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had said that the faith issue on the ANI tagging wasn't action worthy. I trust you will remember next time. For now, I'm still recommending you both need to discuss on the talk page, and both agree to seek dispute resolution at WP:DRN along with the others who edit that page. That is what that board is designed to handle, not ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: is User:DIREKTOR allowed to constantly attack me personally like this? Please see examples of his recent posts:

• - another Balkans article that has a disruptive local user personally "attached" to it...PANONIAN does not really have a sound argument of any sort, nor is he at all willing to openly accept that as a fact (you can see him right now, talking about some OR propaganda posters and coins)...He will change his claims and his position continuously depending on whether it will specifically help his agenda on that article, namely the creation of a non-existent country...Because we do not "compromise" between personal opinions and POV-pushing...PANONIAN is just POV-pushing, and is wrong, whereas Peacemaker and I are just plain right...PANONIAN's "disputes" would be laughed-off the talkpage on any more prominent article. This is about a user, not a real factual dispute...What is necessary here is that the problem user be made to abide by Wikipedia policy
• PANONIAN is on an agenda, his goal is not improving Wikipedia
• I just reverted the absurd WP:OVERTAGGING and your nationalist-POV subsection switch

My point is: no matter of the content dispute that we have, this user simply should not trash my name like this and he should not to constantly accuse me for "nationalism", "POV pushing", "agenda", "disruptive behavior" etc. I wrote several hundred articles and created numerous images for Wikipedia and I did not deserved that somebody harassing me like this. Can somebody please notify DIREKTOR that he should respect Wikipedia:Civility policy? PANONIAN 18:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. This is basically a preemptive report by PANONIAN. An "accuse him for accusing me before he can accuse me" sort of thing.

These are not personal "insults" or "harassment", but very real issues with regard to this user's behavior on this project. I can show conclusively that User:PANONIAN's behavior is indeed highly WP:DISRUPTIVE, indicative of extreme WP:OWN issues, and that he's very clearly on a "POV agenda". That's blatantly obvious and hardly even debatable at this point. He's frustrated the discussion to such an extent its effectively demolished, and he's taken the whole article hostage. His constant "sockpuppeteering" allegations even got User:Peacemaker67 to use caps lock. One can spend an hour researching and copying down sources quotes he's requested [28] - only to find he's simply dismissed them and started a new talkpage thread repeating the same nonsense all over again [29]. To the above list of "harassments" I will add that the user has very mediocre English skills and a poor to non-existent understanding of Wikipedia policy. He is repetitive, insulting, consistently and brazenly ignores policy and sources after they've been painstakingly quoted over and over and over again - and to discuss with him is a nightmare. He never ever concedes a single point, and there isn't even a semblance of a logical structure to the discourse with this person. he knows he can force users to compromise with his baseless position, and can afford to do ignore anything anyone could possibly write. The issue should be transferred over to WP:AE, for a thorough review of teh user's disruption on that talkpage. Its become impossible to carry on. -- Director (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I am talking about: DIREKTOR constantly accusing me for all these things without any evidence presented. As for quotes, I only asked from DIREKTOR to support his claims with sources. Instead of presenting sources that would confirm his statements, he copy-pasted some quotation that does not confirming his previous statement (so how exactly is disrupting that I say that "I do not see that anything from quoted text supports his position"? Am I not allowed to say my opinion about text from the source? This is exactly the problem: instead to have civilized and serious discussion about the subject this user discussing my personality and accusing me for all kinds of disruptions without a single evidence (even on this same page). PANONIAN 19:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for "preemptive report" accusation, I really do not know what DIREKTOR wants to say by that. Is that supposed to mean that DIREKTOR wanted to "accuse" me for something and that I was aware of that? Just another example of personal accusation and harassment. PANONIAN 19:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PANONIAN's conduct in this arena has been absolutely reprehensible as well. I agree with DIREKTOR, this is an AE issue. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Maybe someone else will come along and try to get to the bottom of this, but at first glance, it looks like Panonian tried to "mediate" the disputes on this article's Talk page. User:Steven Zhang commented he'd prefer to do it at MedCab. Then, Direktor took it to Steven's Talk page, which seems to be the principal source of Panonian's complaint (the comments Direktor made there). I don't know precisely where it belongs, but my strong sense is that it doesn't belong here as it's essentially a content dispute with aggressively worded comments thrown in (what else is new in these sorts of articles?).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regarding the issue of sockpuppetry accusations, I said already that I will not accuse Peacemaker67 for been a sockpuppet and I am not doing that any more (or DIREKTOR can provide some recent diff which can show that I again accused Peacemaker67 for been a sockpuppet?). PANONIAN 19:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar von Richthofen, seems that you remember previous discussion from this page that was opened because of my accusations for sockpuppetry - you can see that I did not continued with such accusations. I never again said that Peacemaker67 is a sockpuppet. In this case, however, I am a victim, since DIREKTOR now accusing me for all kinds of disruptions - if I accused someone for sockpuppetry that does not mean that I am also nationalist, POV pusher (and who knows what else). I am only asking that my own integrity here is respected in the same way as you asked from me to respect integrity of Peacemaker67 and not to accuse him for being a sockpuppet (I fully accepted that and I never again said that he is a sockpuppet). PANONIAN 20:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor, when you make accusations against other editors, like you have in the diffs and your comments above, you need to supply serious diffs at the time of the comment to support them. Panonian has supplied diffs, what do you have to support your allegations?--v/r - TP 20:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am describing a behavioral pattern, not a particular incident. To actually convey it with diffs would be an immense undertaking, and an unnecessary one. I understand evidence is always necessary, but it isn't like I'm withholding it - the whole discussion on Talk:Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) is fully visible and savailable for review. Unfortunately, the only way anyone could responsibly confirm any of my allegations (and the only way one could truly support them), is to read through the the whole damn thing. I really can't ask anyone to spend his free time in such a way, which is a good part of the reason I did not report all this already. -- Director (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. If you want to "describe behavioral problems" you do it in the form of diffs. Otherwise you have engaged in personal attacks. Directing (no pun) others where to find the evidence isn't enough. Either provide diffs demonstrating the behavior your claiming exists or back off the accusations (and redact).--v/r - TP 21:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by "that's not how this works" you're saying admins don't read through discussions in order to more accurately assess the validity of accusations, then I must say I have encountered such an alleged impossibility on many an occasion. The best I can do is provide examples of various sorts of disruptive behavior, if that will satisfy. I can't (or rather I won't) relay the whole weeks-long discussion. I will have to do it tomorrow as it is nearly 01:00 here (CET). -- Director (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "that's not how it this works" I'm saying you can't make attacks on other editors without providing the support for those accusations and insisting others go find it. You know this dispute better than I, you know where the support for your argument is located. Panonian has supplied diffs showing poor behavior by you and has not sent us all out on a hunt. Show us what you know or take it back.--v/r - TP 23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are diffs in his post... maybe those have been added in the interim, I don't care enough to check the ANI history because if we have a policy on having to add diffs when you complain about someone that's news to me. TParis is largely correct: diffs make your argument well (although there's a soundbite-culture aspect to it that's not great).

None of these diffs seem to be personal attacks aside from claiming eachother have agendas, which is tame. Also, aren't some Balkans related articles under an ArbCom restriction? Would someone more knowledgeable than me comment on that please? Shadowjams (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any case for administrative action and recommend the thread be closed. Try to use dispute resolution, although the subject matter (Balkan politics) may not attract many editors who have not already formed strong opinions. Director, administrators do not "read through the whole damn thing". Editors read what you present here, decide what to do and administrators then take whatever action is recommended. TFD (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I've come late to the party - daughter's birthday today. I think that there are flared tempers here and hashing it out on the talk page is not going to help. Some form of dispute resolution is needed. Of course, dispute resolution is voluntary, the other option being this cycle continues till everyone gets topic banned. I recommend the former, and am willing to conduct the process, but it's not up to me. The parties need to come to the table. Steven Zhang ^Talk 06:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There are multiple issues with the page.

First, the page seems to have the same issue that was addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show (2nd nomination) ... namely, no reliable sources for the majority of the content, and the one that exists is simply a commercial site to reference the price on iTunes. Note: the original article name from the AfD was also salted.

However, even if the page were viewed as sufficiently different from the originally AfD'd text, there remains an issue that the new page was originally created as a copy of http://ed.wikia.com/wiki/Ed,_Edd_n_Eddy%27s_Big_Picture_Show ... it was stripped down and re-edited, and I've revdel'd the oldest edits which were the original copy/paste material. However, I'm not familiar enough with the copyright issues to know if that's adequate, as several of the remaining diffs still contain significant portions of that original text without appropriate attribution.

I was tempted to simply delete the page due to these issues, but wanted to get additional opinions to see if I should instead start a third AfD for the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia uses the same license that we do but it needs to be attributed. I think it's likely that the user who created the article was unaware of the AFD decision to redirect to Ed, Edd n Eddy. Since the section that Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show was redirected to was removed without an edit summary, he probably noticed the absence of coverage and BOLDly decided to write a new article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My (non-admin) opinion: salted means salted. Delete and salt again. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell does it matter if you're not an admin? ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Because all editors have the right to chime in on things like this; adminship is not a promotion to a higher station so much as a few extra tools to be used responsibly. Coming to a consensus on how to resolve an issue is the domain of any editor, not just ones with extra buttons. GRAPPLE X 03:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, it matters because Strange Passerby doesn't have the ability to perform what's being suggested. It's potentially lazy if I suggest that something be done and then don't do it, but Strange Passerby's observation theoretically will keep people from asking him to do it. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is assuming that someone offering an opinion is an indication that action has been taken then we have a broken system or a naive editor. Moreover, expecting anyone who offers an opinion to act on it is a wonderful way to shut down discussion and discourage people from offering opinions and suggestions. ElKevbo (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point: Why should non-admins' opinions be treated any differently and marked as being different? ElKevbo (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This again...oyyy, this has been a four year battle with something that has had more than enough time (five years) to find plenty of sources, and never has (this one is even worse, with the only source being to an iTunes purchase link). Will definitely ask for yet another delete and salt on this. It is nothing but an overlong series finale that can be best described in the show's episode list. And I'm not willing to assume AGF on this; the EE&E community knows darned well that if they want this to have an article it needs plenty of sources and criticism to be created, but it has never been demonstrated. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, why delete it? The series article is established and nobody doubts its notability; why can't we just redirect this title to the series and protect the redirect if necessary? Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a copy-paste without attribution, it is a copyvio. In that case, deletion is the only option. Though that does not preclude recreating as a protected redirect. Resolute 02:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry; I overlooked the copyvio issue — and I'm definitely one who routinely deletes unattributed copies under G12. I thought the problem was solely that people kept creating (wholly newly written) articles on this topic, and that the sole problem was that it wasn't notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show: The Movie should be deleted, missing attribution can be repaired without deletion. WP:Copying within Wikipedia does not apply to external sites, but the requirements of CC-BY-SA/GFDL licensing are the same. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, there has never been any true sources for this 'movie' at all beyond just the usual fancruft that is par for the course when it comes to American children's cable network series. At best, it was a 90 minute episode that can be just described in four paragraphs in a "list of" article (which it already is). The editors continuing to push this article have had four years to find at the minimum, one source that isn't a bulletin board or fan wiki 'type what I see' recap, and they have failed miserably. The redirect lock should be restored at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show and this new title, which both fails to meet MOS as the actual title of the film and with this version, reads as a end-around of consensus. Nate • (chatter) 03:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For any unfamiliar readers, the film's title is Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show, according to the Internet Movie Database. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, as the one who started the thread, my personal opinion is that the article at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show: The Movie (which is the one originally created as a copy/paste with no attribution) should be deleted. Then, the redirect at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show should be changed to point to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes#Film (because the original redirect target was an article subsection that has since been deleted). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Going by date and page size, this revision was copied from Wikia. According to the tag at its top, this early revision of that page was copied from Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just now looking at the article here and the Wikia page, it occurred to me that we still have substantial copying — even the first sentence in the intro is excessively close paraphrasing. Since this content is found in all revisions, we'd have to RevDel the entire page history to get rid of it, so simply deleting the page is substantially simpler. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#AuthorityTam Nobody Ent 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As anticipated, AuthorityTam waited for the dust to settle on this ANI, and has now resumed similar conduct.[30] (The addition in the section "RfC: Reinstatement in lead section" dishonestly quotes me; my response is here.) Now that he has resumed editing, AuthorityTam should provide a more appropriate response regarding his conduct, and the previous suggested courses of action should be further considered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has shown a clear and on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in editing, especially in regards to several editors (Jeffro and BlackCab). As I predicted in the last, interminably long, but never-solved ANI incident, that the same case would be brought back again and again, once a month, until some sanctions are imposed. I have been involved in neither dispute, except for the ANI recaps. I therefore propose a one week block from editing Wikipedia for AuthorityTam, or a topic ban of a minimum 30 days' length from all articles even tangentially related to the Jehovah Witness religion for the same. Each incident in itself may not warrant a block, but, pursuant to "civil POV pushing" (an essay somewhere on here), all the shit together more than justifies one, as it establishes a pattern which the editor does knot seem to acknowledge is disruptive (that it is, is evidenced by being dragged to ANI ad nauseam). (Edit: this fits the very definition of a "preventative block", as it seems that this behaviour continues like the Energizer Bunny.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but can not see the deal here. It is making a big case out of something that isn't. He quoted Jeffro, and wanted to use Jeffro's statement as a reason for editing the article. It could be stoped by reverting the edit, and make a ordinary discussion in the talk page, not reopening this case. I suggest to at least shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it. I am sure it will be more discussions regarded and including AutTam, but as I've stated before, the article need opinionholders challenging some of the existing one at the talk page, as it appears very few of the contributers can keep a completely neutral tone when it comes to the topic (even though, some of the users at least try). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There was no consensus on the last ANI and little contribution from the community at large -- just lots of squabbling amongst three editors (all of whom could improve the collegiality and civility of their interaction style). Block all 3, ban all 3, or block or ban none. Refer to WP:DR. Nobody Ent 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, this is no closer to a resolution than when it started. I understand everyone has the right of reply, but you guys are just going in circles here, and making it extremely difficult for anyone outside the dispute to determine exactly what the "problem" is and what you want done about it. The admin action needed here at this point is for someone uninvolved to step in, hat most of the above, and try to keep the discussion focused. Or, even better, just close it as I don't see where any action is likely to be taken at this point. Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Megitza at Copernicus Theater.jpg is about to appear on the main page as part of a DYK item about musician Megitza. The image is a fully-protected local copy of the same image at Commons. This appears to be a cropped version of this image from Megitza's website. The original image says "U Szterner photography" but that is not visible in the cropped version uploaded to Commons. Can someone please take a look at this image and perhaps also the other images uploaded to Commons (it may be helpful to compare them to the image gallery on Megitza's site which has the photographer's names)? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader shares the subject's name and seems to be implying here [31] that she actually is that person, which doesn't seem too unlikely, so the licensing claim may well add up after all (if the photography was done for hire), but I agree according to our usual standards we need OTRS confirmation or something similar. I've removed the image from the queue for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The photo was created by a Commons account "Megitza".[32] The Megitza website includes a gallery of photos, some of which are [33] by "Urszula Szterner i Arthur Partyka". In the talk page of a now deleted album cover [34] the user Megitza wrote "Boleritza" album cover was designed, created by me, and the photo on the cover is my personal photo. Please do not delete this file. I don't see it as unlikely that the user has legitimate rights to these photos. Given that the user doesn't know the talk page of a file facing deletion is ignored (why is that anyway?), OTRS was probably never considered. (Also consider the language barrier). It is possible that the photographer could hold copyright in the photo and the user is unaware of this because it was a work for hire that isn't. But do other countries have the lunacy like in the U.S. that you could hire a wedding photographer and then be told that they're not your photos? Wnt (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]