text:
they've provided in their edits, the only sources they have provided before filing this report were encyclopedia.com and imamreza.net. And even if the new book, which I haven't seen before, is a reliable source they'll need a consensus supporting them on the talk page of the article, before changing what the article says, since multiple other editors have opposed the changes, and have done so many times... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:ДжингибиЩеГоЯдеПодВода
is a clear attack account: username and edit summaries ("Removed terrorism of the Macedonian Pomp Jingib") are attacks on User:Jingiby (Джингиби in Bulgarian tralnsiteration), edit warring in a number of articles with pointless edits such as this. Clearly a disruption-only account. Please block indefinitely. Constantine  ✍  17:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is sock from blocked User:PavelStaykov. The name he has registred now is a personal attack against me.Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeffed as not here to contribute.

Accusation of bludgeoning. Article Plimpton 322
I have been accused of bludgeoning by David Eppstein on this page and as per advice raise a notice here. There is a dispute on this page. Recently an article about the subject of the page appeared in a prestigious academic journal to considerable publicity in 'quality' newspapers. Traffic to the page increased greatly. Some long term editors wish to exclude all mention of this article. This appears to be quite against the broad guidelines of wikipedia which says that all mainstream points of view must be represented. Various other editors have stated that the article should be mentioned. I requested comment some days ago but none has been forthcoming. 9and50swans (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Just to clarify for anyone following along: Plimpton 322 is the article being discussed, not a username. (I have no other interest in this discussion beyond pointing that out).Alephb (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For clarity I changed the title of this section 9and50swans (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I have reviewed the article's talk page, and this thread simply constitutes yet more bludgeoning by the OP, who possibly deserves a b... a boo... a boom... I won't say it.  E Eng  12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A boom lowered on him? --(signed) Inquiring Editor
 * Maybe a booby prize? --Prize Patrol
 * Give him the boot? --Just for Kicks
 * Boom Bang-a-Bang? --Lulu

 * as per advice raise a notice here - Where is this advice? I would be interested to see it, but just from what I see here it looks like bad advice. False accusations of bludgeoning are not actionable and may be shrugged off or resolved by respectful and civil discussion with the accuser. And this page is not for resolution of content disputes; see WP:DR. It's for actionable bad editor behavior. ― Mandruss   ☎  18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing someone somewhere said the classic, "If you want to keep complaining, take it to ANI." Maybe we should have a rule against that, 'cause threads like this one are what it leads to.  E Eng  19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and we can bring people to ANI for violating that rule. ― Mandruss  ☎  20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course not. We'll have a series of meta-ANIs (ANI2, ANI3, etc.). See also User:EEng.  E  Eng  20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_bludgeon_the_process#Dealing_with_being_accused_of_bludgeoning_the_process
 * If you think a policy is being transgressed, ask an uninvolved administrator for their opinion.
 * Without quoting chapter and verse Wikipedia is supposed to report all strands of mainstream opinion, and it is clearly not happening here. Mention of a recent article in a respected academic journal is being suppressed. I am rather surprised that this can happen on wikipedia. If there is no easy remedy I suggest that this brings wikipedia into some disrepute. Whatever the outcome on this I am grateful for the education in how wikipedia works, which I will pass on to others 9and50swans (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You really are, as you've been told before, bludgeoning. As far as I can tell you're not gaining an education in how Wikipedia works;; rather, the only thing you seem to be learning is that you're not getting what you want.  E Eng  20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In case the many article talk threads, RFC, and ANI thread here weren't enough, 9and50swans has now started yet another: see WP:NPOVN. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Just to note to suggest we keep this open a bit longer as the OP mentioned he'd be traveling a few days, and I anticipate further trouble.  E Eng  17:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Open an SPI: A new form of disruption at an article covered by WP:ARBPIA
just opened an SPI against two of the three editors who opposed him at Talk:Ali Khamenei. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. He also planned to open an SPI, against the third editor, me, as explained at Oshwah's talkpage. The WP:ARBPIA is rife with conflict and disruption. I consider this to be, a new form of disruption. I request a speedy close of the SPI and a warning to the initiator about this type of behaviour. The also needs more eyes and a check for POV, but I am not at ANI to pursue editorial comments about that article. Thank you. Dr.  K.  17:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As background - this began by a series of edits by Mhhossein to Ali Khamenei (some may be viewed as perhaps POVish, some were definitely positive), some of which were challeged and during which Mhhossein performed a 1RR vio ( + 1st,  2nd) which he did self-revert upon being warned this was the case . He then removes an-indepth Newsweek piece as "It's just an opinion" which was challenged by several editors, following up with a WP:NEWSORG claim  and then claiming Human interest story, discounting other opinions , followed by an attempt to SPI Dr.K. (which failed on technical grounds due to page protection), and then moved on to SPI me (Icewhiz). And this for an in-depth article on the subject in Newsweek. I might not be available on-wiki for the next few days (travelling on vacation, back next Sunday, probably will check in sparsely).Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SPI clerk note: I've declined to "speedy close" the case linked above as I see behaviour worth investigating, which I'm now doing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Comment: An admin please close this nonsense and strange report!!! @Dr.K.: Later on, please be careful before accusing others at ANI. -- M h hossein   talk 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * not so fast, nothing I've said here or at the now-closed case should be taken as an endorsement of your action. I saw something entirely unrelated that was worth checking, in my own opinion. More shortly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. -- M h hossein   talk 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. I beg your pardon? And what does that have to do with, an innocent bystander whom you unjustly accused of socking? Is there no recognition, on your part, of the glaring mistakes you made putting this innocent editor through this ordeal? This is disruptive, because it demonstrates that you do not understand the disruption you have caused and you may repeat it in the future. At a minimum, you owe Icewhiz an apology. You owe one to me as well, but I won't hold my breath that you will apologise to me. Dr.   K.  00:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I see you avoid replying to my request that you apologise to for your error in reporting a good-faith innocent editor to SPI. So, here is the effect of your error: Your creation Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz was deleted because: G6: SPI filed in error under an innocent name. So I will ask you for the last time: Will you admit you were in error in filing this SPI using Icewhiz's name and apologise to Icewhiz?  Dr.   K.  15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Related discussions

 * I just wish to note that there are now three discussions on AN/I involving the editing of IranianNationalist, Pahlevun and Mhhossein:
 * Complaint by Slatersteven about IranianNationalist
 * Complaints by IranianNationalist about Mhhossein and Pahlevun
 * This complaint by Dr.K. about Mhhossein
 * This is probably a good indication that this suite of three editors needs to have their contributions more closely examined in relation to WP:NPOV and WP:ARBPIA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking the same thing, the same edds on related (by religion) topics.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken: Just a moment, which of my edits was wrong? Can you elaborate on this? I can't understand why Dr.K. is so worried about a sockpeppetry being investigated, this is while there's no name of him in the reprot. Both of the cases opened regarding me are nonsense. -- M h hossein   talk 02:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If I had a specific accusation to make, I would have made it, but what I wrote was "this suite of three editors needs to have their contributions more closely examined". No Wikipedian should object to having their edits looked at if there's an indication there might be problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't understand why Dr.K. is so worried about a sockpeppetry being investigated, this is while there's no name of him in the reprot. Please do not misrepresent my words. In fact, I am not worried at all. To prove this point, I quote what you said to : I was trying to report Dr.K. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC). Wonderful. This is your chance. We are at ANI. Can you explain to everyone here, better still, can you submit your evidence that led you to want to open an SPI against me? Checkusers, SPI clerks, sockhunter admins are all watching for the big reveal with their fingers at the WP:DUCK-block button. I can't wait. Thanks much. Dr.   K.  03:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein - I echo Dr.K.'s request: I would like to see the exact evidence you had supporting your sock puppetry accusations, please.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I never accused Dr.K.. I've already made enough explanations on why I thought sock-puppetry was happening (see Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz). You see by the admins' comments that I was much right about the report, at least regarding DarkKing Rayleigh. Naturally, Dr.K. falling on the dubious account's side came into mind at the very first step. But later, when I contacted Oshwah, I was leaning toward others and Oshwah knows it well. However, I really wonder why Dr.K. hastily acted against my Sockpuppet investigations which had nothing to do with him in practice. Also, Had you seen this page before coming to this discussion? I don't think any policy or guideline prohibits me from thinking on the the possibility that a user can be a puppet. FYI, the case of INeverCry who was an admin in Commons (I doubt if he was an admin here, too) and later found to be a Master playing another account whom was admin, too. --  M h hossein   talk 06:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken: You're right and I have never had any objections. Tnx. -- M h hossein   talk 06:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein - Accusing me of having any connection with DarkKing Rayleigh was done without a shred of evidence (which you failed to produce in the report, and here). You did this after a content dispute - in which I would say your actions were questionable (calling a serious article in Newsweek a Human Interest Story?!) - and per your own postings to Oshwah's page - you intended to report Dr.K. on the exact same (lack of) grounds - and moved on to me only following technical difficulties (the SPI page was blocked). I'll note that the timing just after MehrdadFR's block (with whom you've been in contact, and who was making similar off base accusations at AE regarding people who disagreed with him, including me) was also odd. Accusing someone of a serious offense, and sockpuppetry is a serious offense, without any evidence (and in this case - an interaction report limited to some 4-6 pages, and totally different editing patterns (he's editing when I'm asleep!)) - could definitely be construed as quite personal in the sense of No personal attacks. Whether you were correct or not of any misconduct regarding DarkKing Rayleigh (of which I have no concrete opinion - since I do not know much of this new account - though your original report seems to be shaky) - is completely irrelevant to an accusation linking him to me, or accusing me of acting as a sock puppeteer. Regarding policy - this would seem to be fishing as per WP:SPCU. I don't have much to fear from a checkuser (other than what I see as an attack, and entry of my account name in a log) - though from what I read (and see in some account pages) such checks can also find random connections (e.g. multiple editors editing from the same office /library / lab (which may contain hundreds of people or more) - which could be difficult to disentangle (as opposed to a situation in a house with few people).Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I never accused Dr.K. Remember: This is ANI, not Comedy Central or a forum for alternative facts. Now I have two quotes to help you refresh your memory:
 * This is your first question to : A question Dear Oshwah, how are you? I'm here per your kind offer of help. I was trying to open a Sockpuppet investigations subpage for a user but the page was protected while I tried it for anther user and it allowed me. What's wrong? Tnx. --Mhhossein talk 04:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC).
 * This is the followup comment to Oshwah: I was trying to report Dr.K. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC).
 * So, I ask you again. Please supply the evidence that led you to want to open an SPI against me to the point that you had to enquire about it with an admin.
 * However, I really wonder why Dr.K. hastily acted against my Sockpuppet investigations which had nothing to do with him in practice. Wonder no more. Acting to prevent SPI abuse against, an established and good-faith editor, from someone with a demonstrable lack of skills for opening SPIs, and who seriously intended to open a fact-free SPI against me, was the least I could do to minimise disruption for a colleague, the project and myself. As for your motives, you only know for sure, but if I had a guess, I would think that you were desperate to win the content dispute at Talk:Ali Khamenei.  Dr.   K.  15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * having reviewed the report in probably a great deal more detail than the others who have commented here, I agree that the situation makes it look like you filed this report frivolously to try to "win" a content dispute by making trouble for your opponents, but there is also the possibility that you don't understand what sockpuppetry is. As an example: sockpuppetry is one user making several accounts to make it look like there is additional support for their side of a dispute. Sockpuppetry is not when several users in good standing who are regular and long-term contributors to a topic area disagree with something you're trying to do. I don't think that your report was entirely in bad faith: a suspicious account did participate in the discussion, but I didn't see any good reason to suspect that that account was being operated by either of the two users you reported (or attempted to). Sockpuppetry is something we look on very poorly, and accusing someone of sockpuppetry without good evidence is often considered a personal attack, and I'll repeat the advisory that this topic area is under discretionary sanctions. If you find yourself in a similar situation again where you have a disagreement you can't resolve on a talk page, a good next step is dispute resolution. Please do not file any more sockpuppetry investigation requests unless you have very good evidence; if you feel the need to file, feel free to ask myself or one of the other SPI clerks to review your case in advance. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - I've removed as much of a trace of the SPI being filed under your name as I can without obfuscating the actual report; I think it's very clear from what's left that you were accused in error. The entry in the Checkuser log can't be removed, but it is only visible to users with CU access (not a lot of people) and is considered protected private information. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As it happens, none of us saw any good reason to run a CU on Icewhiz, so his CU log is currently empty. Yunshui 雲 水 15:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very interesting to see the you are accusing me of disruption (without hearing my narration of the content dispute) while it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. It's even more interesting that you, as an SPI clerk, don't know of "good standing who are regular and long-term contributors to [the project]" which found to be committing sock-puppetry. Now my suggestions for you, next time, before doing such basic level preaches see the user's contributions, articles and awards. By the way, please see WP:AGF. -- M h hossein   talk 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.K.:Just stop victim playing and making personal attacks, you have nothing to do with this discussion. -- M h hossein   talk 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You made two baseless sockpuppeting accusations, and the third that actually existed was identified and deal with by Ivanvector himself. I think you've exhausted your good faith allowance for the time being. It doesn't matter if an editor in good standing had sockpuppeted, you don't go around casting aspersions as to the conduct of other editors with zero connecting evidence, save for that they all appeared on the same page, on the basis of somebody else did it too. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * stop denying that you requested a sockpuppetry investigation of Dr.K. on Oshwah's talk page. You did, we can all see it. My suggestion above that maybe you don't understand exactly what sockpuppetry is was me assuming good faith. Your response that you reported these two users because some other completely unrelated user operated sockpuppets in the past is explicitly a bad-faith argument: you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS based on no relevant evidence at all, and it's an equally specious argument to call these users sockpuppets because you were improperly accused in another entirely unrelated case. I haven't commented on the content dispute and don't intend to, it is entirely irrelevant to the sockpuppetry investigation, which is concluded. You may interpret this as a warning: further commentary in defense of this sockpuppetry investigation and/or regarding the motivations of users in this thread is very likely to be taken as a personal attack. I'll reply to your question on my talk page shortly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's of not importance whether you believe in what I say. See my comments at Oshwah's talk page. At first I though DR.K. could be a part of the puppetry, later, after Oshwah asked for concrete evidences and looked deeper into the edits, I realized that the two others are much more involved. Regarding "You may interpret...", do as you wish, my sentences are what I said. -- M h hossein   talk 17:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ...later, after Oshwah asked for concrete evidences and looked deeper into the edits, I realized that the two others are much more involved. No problem. I will settle for whatever little involvement in sockpuppetry that you think I had. Can you specify that little bit of socking you think I did? Dr.   K.  03:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No reply here either. Once more, you said that ...the two others are much more involved. That implies that I was "involved" but to a "much lesser degree". Can you describe my small involvement? On the other hand, if you think I had no involvement at all, what prevents you from acknowledging that and apologising to me? Basic intellectual honesty requires that you provide an answer to this simple question Mhhossein. Dr.   K.  15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is one of the reasons I brought this user at ANI. 's inability to admit any fault even for the most obvious of his/her transgressions, while at the same time personally attacking the editors he disagrees with, has manifested itself multiple times at Talk:Ali Khamenei, but without repercussions to himself. However, at ANI, his disruption is under scrutiny by the wider community. That gives me a certain sense of comfort. His refusal to get the point of his disruption clearly manifests itself by his personal comments directed against . By the way, I find Ivanvector's analysis of Mhhossein's actions, consummately professional and even-handed, and I thank him for that. I will not reply to Mhhossein's diatribe directed at me, just above, since it is as transparently fact-free as his botched SPIs.  Dr.   K.  17:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein has resorted to trolling on the talkpage of the blocked sock

 * Mhhossein gives trolling reply to my ANI notice on the page of the blocked sock: Thanks for informing him, however he's unfortunately blocked because of "the disruption caused by Mhhossein". --Mhhossein talk 04:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I had given the ANI notice to the sock, before there was an SPI about his/her socking. Dr.   K.  06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now, Mhhossein has resorted to edit-warring adding back the trolling. Dr.   K.  06:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also misused rollback reverting my edit. Dr.   K.  06:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverted again. Dr.   K.  06:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, "This is my right to have this [message]. This message is meant as a sort of response against your accusations". -- M h hossein   talk 06:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You go WP:GRAVEDANCING on the talkpage of a blocked sock leaving a trolling message and you expect me to reply to it? Dr.   K.  06:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your repetitive accusing me with WP:trolling is deemed as personal attack. Wikipedia is not a battle field. You are wasting the time of every one involved in this topic. Btw, the message was to you, not to the blocked user. --  M h hossein   talk 06:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * ANI is the place to discuss your disruption. You try to avoid this noticeboard and you attempt trolling messages at the talkpage of a blocked sock. Let's wait for the admins to handle your disruption. Dr.   K.  07:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Look, I really don't want to spoil a clean block log over this, but I'm getting tired of seeing new messages here.
 * above, I asked you (warned you, actually) not to comment on this sockpuppetry issue anymore or cast aspersions about editors here. I realize that my wording "in this thread" may be open to interpretation. However, going to the talk page of the blocked sockpuppet to reply to Dr.K.'s administrative note (a note which is required by policy when posting here) with a complaint about this thread is clearly trolling where it's not grave-dancing.
 * I want to assume good faith and you are entitled to ask for an explanation, but 1) Mhhossein had already given one (not a great one, admittedly) and 2) your continued questioning of him here and on their talk page flies directly in the face of my warning to Mhhossein not to comment on the sockpuppetry issue any further. You're not trying to bait them, are you?
 * To both of you: I'd like to ask you both to drop this back-and-forth and get back to editing articles. There is only going to be something here worth further administrative action if this continues, and I don't see there being anything to gain from such an outcome. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I replied, as you saw, to his comments as I saw them. Obviously, I did not connect my enquiries to him to your warning about not commenting further on the SPI, because I considered an apology to Icewhiz or to myself to be a constructive step that would indicate this editor's understanding of the error he committed. If your interpretation of the warning to him, includes prohibition of acknowledging any errors he made in the comments on this thread, perhaps you should have made this more clear, because it was not clear to me at all. In that sense, raising a baiting possibility on my part is unfair, because I did not interpret your warning so strictly. In fact, I skimmed through it, and did not read it in depth. Further, if this discussion has become a blocking minefield for good-faith attempts at further resolution, I would suggest you close it. I also find your comment about "getting back to editing articles", to be very unfair and it also indicates that you are not clear about what motivates content creators; such prompts at ANI simply don't cut it as motivation. But I will leave it at that.  Dr.   K.  21:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute at Avatar (2009 film)
added a Non-NPOV and potentially biased piece of information on the film page, Avatar (2009 film). I have attempted to discuss the issue and provided helpful hints, but user has subsequently ignored it.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw that the editor has reverted you three times in the last 24 hours, meaning they're at the limit. So I gave him the appropriate warning. I did not revert it myself; what I suggest you do instead is rewrite the material he added in accordance with policy and properly format the source. If he reverts you after that, then take it to WP:ANEW. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The material is copied from here and thus is a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Closer examination reveals the user has already received a final warning for copyvio, so I have blocked. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with commas
Can I get help w/a MoS question concerning commas? Wikipedia's MoS says this about commas: "In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation. Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical. Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands. Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands." Concerning the commas in dates in month-day-year formet, using this example from the Father Murphy page, "Father Murphy is an American western drama series that aired on the NBC network from November 3, 1981 to September 18, 1983." The MoS says a comma is required after the year 1981: "Father Murphy is an American western drama series that aired on the NBC network from November 3, 1981, to September 18, 1983." Chicago, AP, APA & AMA says the same thing. All reputable sources agree - it's not ambiguous at all. So why was my change reverted? It doesn't seem as if this is an optional comma; MoS says it's required; no exceptions are noted. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:35C6:C200:C522:44A:E109:F43F (talk • contribs)

 * IP is a likely sockpuppet of User:Hoggardhigh and has been reported for investigation. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel  ‖ 06:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Request that Rana Jai Singh be deleted
I just noticed today that an article named Rana Jai Singh is in wikipedia. The article is here since 2011 and does not even have a single book source or external link. I proposed it for deletion and notified the creator of the page, but I just checked and saw that that the creator(Cao Ren) is inactive since December 2011. As the creator of the article has no arguments(or sources) which signify this article's importance or authenticity, I request the administrators that this article should be deleted immediately as having unsourced articles is against Wikipedia's policy, especially if it is the article of a person.Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --Immediate deletions, other than under those explicitly covered under speedy criterion does not occur.And this has a credible claim of significance(commanding officer of a royal army at a battle) and has a chance of prob. decent sourcing which is just missing.Also see that WP has no deadline.Thus, I've declined the PROD.Please approach the WP:AFD route.Thank you! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 10:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Its just a claim. It says that he is a commanding office of a royal army at the Siege of Chittor bu th article Siege of Chittorgarh does not have him. Neither do any of the books which include siege of Chittorgarh like Rana 2004, Chandra 2005 or Sarkar 1960. That means that he is in no books. As for claim, anyone can add a claim by editing an unsourced article. And 6 years have passed and no sources have been, given so what chance is left. This article was also out of attention and no one noticed so how could someone improve it? It has rare if not zero links. Even I found it while going through the history of Siege of Chittorgarh in an old revision. As it has no source, only claims, the article is classified for deletion. If it is an article, there should be things told to us, such as what place he ruled or any other fact about him if he is important. e.g It is mentioned in an article(which has its sources) and a number of other books and articles. If not, then it is just a misconception. Even if not speedy deleted, it should be at least nominated for deletion.--Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, the way to get this deleted is to go via WP:AFD. I see this has been done. Please make your arguments at Articles for deletion/Rana Jai Singh. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

== So how do I get a Wikip grammarian to help? 2605:E000:35C6:C200:C522:44A:E109:F43F (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC) ==

So how do I get a Wikip grammarian to help? 2605:E000:35C6:C200:C522:44A:E109:F43F (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:Help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Block needed
Please block this user as soon as possible. The user has repeatedly removed a section from an article without consensus. When I reverted them, they accused me of being a vandal, troll, and a malfunctioning bot. They have also started to use hostile edit summaries such as this one. Comfycozybeds (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible behavioral OR problems by myself in The Putin Interviews (?)
Brief background (And I managed to post it wrong, first time) I've earlier asked for better guidance when it comes to Plots of motion pictures, novels, etc - at the Village Pump as well as elsewhere. As I was looking for information about Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews series, did I notice that the article in question contained very little information. Someone had began at a Summary, which must be the counterpart to a Plot within fiction - film/novels etc. And we are then to use the film/interview or novel as a primary source. Any contributor must take especially documentaries like this one very serious. And report what's observed, without making any own conclusions. Otherwise it would be OR, obviously. Having said that, am I hereby reporting myself to AN/I, in order to try to find out if I possibly have been guilty of any OR in the summary part of that article or not. Main issue - If an interviewed person isn't responding to a specific question, then changes subject, and instead makes (for the put Question, in question), a totally unrelated statement, is normally exactly the same as "avoiding a question." Which can be observed (there was no cut made in the interview there) and isn't anything I have "invented" I would further like to say, from a normal human perspective, is a change of subject a very well-known way to avoid a question. Extreme hypothetical aspects aside. In this case, did Putin avoid to answer at least one of Stone's questions. Some other user, is of a very different opinion, and accuses me of having drawn OR conclusions. And appear to make the argument that "Putin never actually said I avoid that question". While I mean, that I have observed that Putin avoids a question from Stone. And hence have I not been guilty of OR. Not to my knowledge, anyhow. If an interviewed person isn't responding to a specific question, change subject, and instead makes, for the put question, a totally unrelated statement, is normally exactly the same as "avoiding a question" which can be observed (and there was not cut in the interview, there, which may be essential) An other contributor appears to question just everything, in my humble opinion. Like "Does Putin say 'I avoid that question ?'", If Stone really has put this question or if there are any questions at all, in this 4 hours of interviews. Or at the very least, brings up various hypothetical aspects of as much as he/she just can. If this contributor's general argumentation would be carried out in terms of new guidelines for Plots and Summaries, would it mean the end of our service of to our readers of this kind. Finding a Plot or a good Summary for novels, motion pictures, documentaries and interviews in Secondary sources, don't I really believe to be possible for us. And generally, as far as I have seen at least, are our Plots / Summaries seldom or never abused. I concur with those who say, "in Plots/Summaries is the novel or film a primary source" (The only serious alternative would be to remove presumably next to all of them) I have suggested to that user to make a complaint to AN/I, but it's just possibly might be so, that endless argumentation over "the Pope's beard - or the Beard's beard" is something he/she prefer. But really don't know. And as no such complaint has been made here, do I feel obliged to do this myself. (But I just happened to put this outside AN/I, at Wiki-No OR, I'm not used to make complaints, and I'm sorry for this mistake of mine.) And I think an AN/I verdict would be to prefer, in this special case, ahead of endless time wasted at talk-pages over nothings (not just for me here and now, but in general and for the future). In a nutshell - isn't changing subject exactly the same as avoiding a question, normally ? And I really mean e-x-a-c-t-l-y the same, in this case. And if AN/I find me guilty of intentional OR violation, do I expect some kind of proper punishment, although I have reported myself. If AN/I find me guilty of unintentional OR, would some comments be nice (aside of a possible punishment), something that I could take to heart for the future. And if AN/I find that I haven't been guilty of OR violation, then would this matter still be decided, for other obvious observations related to Plots / Summaries. I will notify "myself" as well as the contributor who's got a very different opinion, but as he hasn't brought it up, do I leave this up to himself, if he feels like participate in this complaint against myself. I guess he/she will, as he/she was the one who notified me that "this isn't the real AN/I" Finally, I'm not doing this for fun, I must add. Am I wrong must AN/I punish me as if the complaint came from the other contributor. But the issue is about whether I have drawn OR conclusions in the Summary part of The Putin Interviews article. (I made a WP:BOLD statement in the lead of this article, with the aim to get more contributors interested. Four hour of interviews with a Summary of 1,5 line did I find to be appallingly little. And I guessed t hat the article is somewhat delicate and perhaps may scare contributors. Boeing720 (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * WP:NOR is a content policy. This page is for actionable violations of behavior policy, thus you can't report someone to ANI for NOR violation, including yourself. See WP:DR for ways to resolve content disputes. Unless you can make a case that you are guilty of disruptive editing, you will have to find your punishment elsewhere. I could suggest some S&M sites. ― Mandruss  ☎  07:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * This miasma of incoherent ramblings is fairly typical of Boeing720's writing. He seems to have great difficulty expressing himself in an intelligible way in English, yet steadfastly refuses to acknowledge or accept any advice he is given in the attempt to help him.  Generally, it is quite difficult to work out what he is saying and this applies to main space edits as well, with the consequence that others have to come along and clean up after him.  If ever there was a case of competence is required, this is it.  -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of Nick Thorne's comment. This seems entirely redundant to the WP:NOR/N thread. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * A remedy is required. I commented at Boeing720's talk regarding a completely unacceptable edit (diff) which changed a straight forward account of what happened in an interview to a slanted assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Putin had avoided a "specific question". Of course such a conclusion would be valid for almost all interviews with politicians, but Boeing720 fails to understand that Wikipedia is not the place for such blog-like commentary. The user has had some support in the past from kind observers who see Boeing720 struggling with English and apply buckets of WP:AGF. However, the user's talk page show that the time for that is past. The problem may involve an inability to comprehend the English explanations that have been given. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll provide some examples of how I've tried to deal with this user. I first encountered Boeing720 on C (programming language) while cleaning up a series of edits he was making. The bad grammar made the sentences nearly indecipherable and for example one reference offered was literally "This was stated by a computer and high skilled Swedish programmer at university level, by 2001". Also on a technical level the knowledge presented was very rudimentary, superfluous to the article, and sometimes wrong. Subsequently I have kept and eye out and these are typical of the kind of corrections that are necessary to every major article edit Boeing720 makes. Explaining patiently in detail what the grammatical and sourcing problems are has never had any effect, he argues past the point, often asserts his expertise, becomes aggravated and most problematically: continues making the same mistakes. For examples of the conversations see Talk:Register (keyword), Talk:C (programming language), User talk:Boeing720 (and the section above it) and WP:NORN. I feel bad about the circumstance; I think Boeing720's intent is good but an inability to process and accept advice regarding original research and fundamental English grammar is difficult to work with. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend a warning and close until another editor reports (if they still persist with OR or become disruptive).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * This is the core of the matter (taken from DIYeditor's contribution above): "I commented at Boeing720's talk regarding a completely unacceptable edit (diff) which changed a straight forward account of what happened in an interview to a slanted assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Putin had avoided a "specific question". " - But I disagree (and from scratch, was it DIYeditor who changed my contribution, just see the history file to article in blue below). Writing "Putin avoided that question" is obvious enough for making that statement. It's not an interpretation, is no change of the actual significance. It's solely an observation. Regarding Edward Snowden in The Putin Interviews. When Stone asks about Putin's views on Edward Snowden and whether he is a traitor or not, Putin replies, "No he is not, as he never has worked for any foreign country," but when Stone then turns that question around and asks "What about if a Russian FSB employee had done something similar ?", then Putin avoids this question by changing subject, and instead says "To spy on ones own allies is dirty, really dirty". I cannot find the words "avoid this question" includes any interpretation or OR. Putin changed subject, he didn't reply to Stone's question, which is exactly the same as avoiding a question. If continue on this line in absurdum: Was, what Putin then said really a reply at all ? Or did he begin discussing something else ? Perhaps he didn't hear Stone or his (possible) question ? If it indeed was a question at all !? Or perhaps Putin didn't listen good enough ? And did Stone actually ask any question at all during 4 hours ? Only at a few occasions did Stone actually say "This is something i must ask..", "People at home expects me to ask this..", so if following in absurdum can no editor at Wikipedia state that there were any other questions, but those ones.. And did Putin say "my reply to your question is..." anytime during the (aired) interviews ? Define "question", define "reply" etc. etc. In absurdum.
 * I really don't think I challenge any of our guidelines. And certainly not their intentions. Largely all our Plots and Summary parts to our articles about film /motion pictures, novels, TV-series and TV-documentaries would have to be deleted or heavily reduced, if it's unacceptable to make obvious observations. So what is an "obvious observation" ? One answer is, something that a wide majority share and agree. Absolutely free of own conclusions. DIYeditor has previously pointed out that Putin doesn't specifically say that he avoids that question - but nevertheless does Putin avoid this question. Which all who have watched would agree to, that he does. Not everything must be said in words in order to be obvious enough to observe ! And the use of primary sources isn't my invention, but I can understand if someone should think Stone's interviews are of higher importance, when compared to fiction. But I think I was careful in my contributions to The Putin Interviews. Including in the edit summaries. And including "Putin avoided that question". I think we have arrived at some kind of crossroads. A crossroads between common sense and reason in one corner, and "absurdum" in the other one. At least when it comes to Plots and Summaries. "Carefulness" must however be a keyword in such cases. But I say again, obvious observations, doesn't by default require words. Especially not in filmed dialogues, and as long as secondary sources are unavailable.

 * Complaints about my English isn't a part of this imperative matter and formal complaint. (But I've never received complaints like DIYeditor's before, during six years here. I think my self-estimation of my English is correct, compared to others - 3, advanced but not academical. But anyone is free to open an other AN/I complaint, about that matter.) This AN/I complaint is meant to be about whether obvious observations of primary sources necessarily must be said in words or not. (excluding stupid hypothetical possibilities and counter possibilities) - and of course if I have violated our OR guideline. My position is "not by default" and most certainly not, in this case. If am wrong, do I fear most of our Plot and Summary "service" (if I may use that label) for our readers are endangered. Lastly do I humbly ask of those who make comments here, to realize that this is a matter of precedent. Boeing720 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Repeating the same arguments in great length, verging on WP:TLDR does nothing to promote your cause. We get it that you don't think you did anything wrong.  That is entirely the problem here.  Despite having several people point out the requirement to avoid OR, you merrily carry on asserting that your interpretation is not OR.  If you can't see why this is an issue then I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for you.  Once again I must point out that our job here is to reflect what the reliable sources say.  You viewing a video is not a reliable source.  End of discussion.  Oh, and you don't get to decide what is discussed and examined here at AN/I.  All aspects of an editors behaviour may and often are examined, including their competence and the amount of work they might create for others even if they are editing in good faith.  My advice would be to reconsider your position, to accept that you are required to abide by policy here and promise to listen to advice from others. -  Nick Thorne  talk  05:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * No. I'm asking for better guidelines regarding the use of primary sources in relation to our Plots and Summaries. And I'm questioning if my contribution in question is an observation or an OR violation. That's the core. Boeing720 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * This really is looking like serious IDHT at the very least, and CIR quite likely.  E Eng  00:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick Thorn, for your comment, by the way. But one example: The Candidate (1972 film) - Second line of the Plot: "Bill McKay (Robert Redford), the idealistic, handsome, and charismatic son of former California governor John J. McKay (Melvyn Douglas)." How can we state Bill McKay to be "idealistic, handsome, and charismatic" ? Is it an obvious observation or an OR violation ? I hope you can see my point here. (even if I have managed to create a kind of mess here, for which I'm sorry) Boeing720 (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What's IDHT and CIR ? Jokes ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT, WP:CIR. How many times do you have to be told that we don't handle content disputes at ANI, and most assuredly not content disputes between an editor and himself? Your rambling opening post belongs in a museum.  E Eng  01:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * It's not a dispute. Not from my side. We simply have to discuss where the limits go between observation and own conclusions regarding primary sources in our Plots and Summaries, and when that becomes OR or not. Wasn't "Putin avoided that question" solely an observation or was it a conclusion I did. I really think we need a verdict. For the future.
 * My position is, unless AN/I comes to a different conclusion, that we are allowed to observe, listening in this example. Hence can we, without any interpretation, write what's obvious observations. I believe that the border between interpretation and observation goes where we begin to think actively. Boeing720 (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Can someone PLEASE close this before we have to give this guy a smack?  E Eng  20:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHillbillyholiday&type=revision&diff=801754061&oldid=801750293 (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point I'd be fine switching my block to an indef. This is ridiculous to be blunt. And the threat of socking is adding to it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't read that as a threat to sock, but as a complaint that he's being accused of socking on flimsy evidence. We typically allow blocked users to vent on their talkpage to a limited extent provided it doesn't descend into disruption. If he starts making nasty attacks rather than just general venting, or if he's actually caught socking rather than just talking about it, then by all means extend it to indef, but expecting people to be perfectly polite when (as they see it) Wikipedia has punished them for trying to comply with policy would be unrealistic. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think this sentence means? Well, Rick, I am going to cock a snoot at both "restriction" and "block" per the following policies: Ignore all rules and WP:Anyone can edit. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 18:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "I don't agree with my block and I'm going to complain about it". Admins aren't the Wikipedia Thought Police; we sanction editors on the grounds of what they do, not on the grounds of what they might hypothetically do. If he's actually socking (which is perfectly possible) then you should have no problem finding some evidence of it. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While I agree in regards to the "socking" thing that we'll handle it if it actually happens, HBH has said several times that they intend to ignore the restriction, and in less than a month has proceeded to do just that three times now, even after a warning and then a week's block. I think that in itself merits consideration as to whether they ought to return to editing without agreeing to abide by the restriction. Otherwise, in a little over a month, I suspect we'll be right back here again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) I was getting ready to say that Seraphimblade. It's a blatant WP:IDHT on his part with regards to the restriction placed on his editing. I gave a month to hopefully encourage him to stop, drop the stick over this and move on, but he's not doing it. If there is sufficient enough demand to do so, an indef would be warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a sanction. I'm disputing the dubious claim that he has not broadcasted his intent to violate the block and the editing restriction. If/when he socks, I'll approach SPI asking for a sanction. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 21:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I strongly suggest you look at the main reverter at Manny Pacquaio by the way - HH is far from the worst offender. By the way, I have disagreed with HH in the past, but the case at hand I think is not quite as clear-cut as some might think. Collect (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You do realize that, right? It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 19:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And that does not obviate the issue on the BLP where one editor seems intent on violating WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS which I regard as something which should be of interest. If you do not wish to even note BLP issues, that is fine.  Most Wikipedia editors seem oblivious. Cheers. And some folks might consider the use of an IP sock as strongly verging on vandalism, but I guess IP edits which just happen to be  exact duplicates of another person's edits are not to be questioned. Collect (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's actually exactly what it does. You didn't read it, otherwise you would have seen the part where his restriction takes precedence over any BLP violation unless it is obvious vandalism. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and pure coincidence that the IP geo-locates to the Philippines. I didn't realise it was ok to support accusations of illegal activity with YouTube clips of ESPN's "Teddy Atlas show", or from sources such as "KDramaStars", the personal blog of Gideon Lasco MD, or FightHype TV. But, hey, maybe they're all perfectly acceptable. Also now sure why "Mayweather vs. Pacquiao lawsuit" and "Post Mayweather fight injury" are subsections beneath "Steroid allegations". But then I don't live in the Philippines, Or have any financial interest in boxing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * , I looked at the BLPN section, at the archived ANI section, and on the talk page, and try as I might I can't find any argument to support you and remove that content again. Unfortunately then, since we don't even remotely have a consensus on the BLP-violating quality of the material, and the sourcing being not ridiculously wrong or stupid, we are stuck with the content still in there, because--and I don't like this at all--in this edit some IP editor (whose other work is borderline incompetent/disruptive) restored it without explanation. Perhaps another admin, more roguish than me, thinks that disruptive enough to revert, but protected it eight minutes later, which is time enough for us to consider that protection a sort of a stamp of approval. If you had more supporters in either of those three discussions than the now-blocked editor and a sock I might have acted. Sorry. [ec with  who also comments on the IP...] Drmies (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In reply to that - we've had an unresolved bug in mediawiki for a while, whereby after a temporarily elevated protection expires, the previous protection is not automatically reinstated, even if of duration beyond the later protection's expiry. So previously active longer protections must be manually restored. The protection carried out on Manny Pacquiao is such a procedural restoration of a previous protection state and should not be seen in relation to any recent conflict at the article - the original indef semi protection stems from 2010. (The technical limitation is also explained here, in a section which - full disclosure - I wrote. The overall document was co-written with two other admins. ) Thank you. Samsara 12:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Martin, the BLPN discussion is still open. Had you made a case there, in a bit more detail, well... Drmies (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Had I made one... ? So my contribution here is just a waste of everyone's time? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe your time--not mine. Had you made that contribution elsewhere, in a bit more detail (since I don't know exactly what you're pointing at), this might have gone differently earlier already. Here, we're discussing Hillbillyholiday. I'm glad you're picking up the torch for them and if you plant it on the talk page, well... Drmies (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm only here because HBH's Talk page is on my watch list and I couldn't see any kind of explanation here as to why he may have been so keen to keep removing that article section. I have no interest in that article, or that particular subject matter. I was just suggesting that that section looked a bit borderline or suspect. If all we're doing is counting reverts, then obviously that's irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123, you have said more in that one sentence above than I can find on the talk page. OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but come on--have a close look at it, comment and point out the flaws, evaluate the sources: you are good at this and apparently you're neutral. I'd appreciate it. I didn't see the obvious BLP vio in the quick look that I took, or I might have done something. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that all those proposing nugatory material on Pacquaio seem to be Philippine. I consider such material as
 * In spite of multiple knockdowns and near stoppages, since the allegations Pacquiao has yet to score a knockout inside the ring ,
 * Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has had suspicion of Pacquiao's former strength and conditioning coach Alex Ariza. Roach stated that Ariza had been giving Pacquiao "special drinks" without his permission. Roach also stated "One of the reasons I don't work with him [Ariza] anymore is he's a little shady. He used to give Manny a drink before workouts, and I asked him what was in the drink and he would never tell me. I told him I need to know what was in the drinks because you're giving it to my fighter.",
 *  Well respected boxing aficionado Teddy Atlas has been of the belief that Pacquiao has been on steroids in the past based on what he [Atlas] sees with his eyes. saying the power is the last thing to go in a fighter, and Manny doesn't have his anymore. and the like.

I suspect that third person accusations of steroid use are generally considered a BLP issue, but your mileage may vary.
 * currently Pacquiao is facing a lawsuit of 5 million dollars by two fans for failing to disclose the shoulder injury in the lead up to his bout with Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

strikes me as something for which a consensus for inclusion should be required.
 * Pacquiao's promoter Bob Arum stated that Pacquiao suffered the injury back in 2008 causing even more confusion as Pacquiao just stated that he suffered the injury during the fight now that he is facing lawsuits also appears problematic.

The fact is that those insisting on this material have steadfastly refused to start any RfC on it, and instead have a bunch of Filipino IPs doing reverts. I rather think this is sufficient grounds for likely checking out the main proponents of this material in the BLP, in fact. Consider those statements, and ask whether they are of a nature which requires strong sourcing compliant in all respects with WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS and whether an editor who refuses to even start an RfC is acting in good faith. Merci. Collect (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. Many thanks, User:Collect. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Blanking sockmaster's userpage allowed?
Regarding this incident after I blanked the userpage of a sockmaster who has been apparently inactive for seven years. My understanding was that such accounts were de facto community banned and such actions were allowed. Or am I mistaken? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the user page violate any Wikipedia policy? I'm asking because I saw no violation.  I'd say it's wise not to mess with the user pages of others without some pressing reason (BLP vio, COPYVIO, etc.)  Tide  rolls  14:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I'm super confused because since I posted, an admin has done the same kind of blanking for the same reason on an unrelated userpage . So apparently it is allowed? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't always disallowed. But whether it should be done or not is a matter of circumstance. The page you blanked hadn't been edited in over two years; if it has sat for that long without harming anyone, then there's no reason to blank it now. Such actions might not be forbidden, but they shouldn't be done without reason. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm with Writ Keeper on this. The question shoul never be if you could; it is always if you should.  Don't think about what you're allowed to do.  Think about what you need to do, and if it serves any purpose.  A two-year old unused talk page is doing no harm.  -- Jayron 32 15:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I know this might be an odd thing to say but IMHO if the user contributed before they socked etc then it should be kept, If they're a prolific sock who never really contributed at all here then the page should be blanked but as Writ Keeper says it's all circumstance really. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's always seemed to be the general practice to replace the content with the SPI banner, so that's what I do. If we want a ruling on this, probably knows best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's always seemed to me to be the general practice for sock blocks too, though it's often avoided (per WP:DENY) for trolls who seem to be trying to maximize their recognised sock count. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * To me it depends on the contents of the page. I don't normally blank a sockmaster's page unless it contains material I would blank anyway, but I do add a sockmaster notice to the very top with some details. Sockmasters aren't automatically banned, only repeat offenders end up in a de facto ban situation because nobody would unblock them, and rarely the community actively bans a very disruptive user. Sockpuppets, on the other hand: I consider them to be violating policy from the moment they create their accounts, and so I regularly blank their userpages and replace with a sockpuppet notice. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm in the 'leave things alone unless there's a problem' camp. But taking issue with your original statement, the account is not blocked (and I may be missing something) - you appear to be suggesting that an account that is inactive for seven years becomes community banned. I don't think so. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I undid the blanking. Partly because I'd prefer it not blanked, but largely because the blanking was completely unexplained. If you're going to do this or similar, the least you can do is add an edit comment explaining why you're doing it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * it's part of the Administrator instructions at WP:SOCKTAG.
 * Tag the sockmaster's user page:
 * If confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with <tt></tt>
 * If not confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with <tt></tt> if the user has been indefinitely blocked. Do not make any change if the user has only been blocked for a limited amount of time.
 * Doug Weller talk 17:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's well and good but Bri is not an administrator so... --Tarage (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Errrm, where's the bit that says "do not explain yourself in the edit comments?" If there isn't such a thing, I don't understand how your comment answers my point William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I should have made a clear edit summary. Actually I thought this editor's story was well enough known that it would be understood w/o comment. But I'm wary of a determination that non-admins can't do documented cleanup that was written for admins. We have few enough to go around as it is without reserving routine clerking to them. Also WP:NOBIGDEAL and all that. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm with Writ Keeper, Davey, and Jayron. Childofmidnight, for all his flaws later on, has given us an immense amount of content, some of it very good (the stuff he wrote with me and, haha--he never learned how to do citation templates). I feel he deserves a user page. The other user, not so much. Doug, I didn't know about that SOCKTAG rule--I do know that frequently we actually don't tag them, to deny recognition, for instance, or to avoid the (related) Streisand effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but I don't think that's written down. We could still blank but not tag I presume. Doug Weller  talk 20:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So glad I am no longer an admin. Busy and stressed IRL. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Dimitrios Baltzis
Hi, I'd appreciate some help here. I've been the subject of a spurious report for edit warring, and am being pressured (harassed) by to restore content that was copyright violation. Thanks for any assistance re: article and user issues. I am, among other things, curious as to how the doctor's website was apparently so quickly converted to free-use, as well as the possibility of COI; I'd also like to confirm from an objective editor whether notability is satisfied. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have send an email to website contact that it would be good to unlock the website for usage, as someone already started it. I have done this numerous times already, as that expand our possibilities to use here. Good faith editors think this is good, unlike other editors who this that editors can have COI with Greek doctor diabetologist. :) Website now have "Licensed under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL." tag, so no reason to remove section per copyright. Simple as that. I asked IP to restore deleted content, as website is free to use on wikipedia. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ )  20:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course good faith was questioned; copyright violation content was repeatedly restored, and an unmerited report was opened against me at the edit warring noticeboard. Since these developments, free use has been obtained. That said, it's still not advisable to copy biographical content directly from the subject's website. I'm requesting both scrutiny of Anastan's handling of this, as well as the content and tone of the article going forward. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are really interested in content of this, you would restore section and sources you have removed. But per your comment, it looks like you are not interested in this subject anymore, so, doesn't matter really. All best. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ )  21:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Phil Murphy (politician)
Could we get a sysop to nuke the problem editor here and probably clean up the page history... most of the first page is now just BLP violations and then reversion of them. Home Lander (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done a load of RDing and blocked one account, already took care of the other. – filelakeshoe (t / c)      22:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by Franz Lidz

In this edit, this one, and this edit, a person claiming to be the subject of a BLP said, "The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation". This seems like a legal threat to me.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's a legal threat, but I think he has a point regarding his BLP. I'll take a look. (see WP:DOLT) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It seems the issues are comments by users on the talk page rather than in the BLP, but your review would be appreciated.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This is Franz Lidz. As I just wrote on the Talk page to my entry, I am emphatically not making a legal threat. I am merely underscoring the recklessness of the edits on the Talk page. I am also requesting that the entry and its Talk page be blanked, per the procedure spelled out elsewhere on this website.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors whose comments on the talk page has been blanked, I want to make it clear that I was not accusing Mr. Lidz of any collusion with the paid editing ring, and I think anyone who actually reads my comments in the context which they were posted can see that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was involved in that discussion as well, and it is abundantly clear that nobody was accusing Lidz of anything. The existence of the sockfarm which edited Franz Lidz and added references to his work in many articles is indisputable, but noone at any time has said or implied that Lidz was a party to it - the accusations of responsibility have all been towards his publisher(s) or PR people connected to the publishers. No one was being reckless, there is clear evidence of the sockfarm's actions, including an admission from one of the participating editors, therefore Lidz (if that is Lidz - until he confirms with OTRS we have no way of being sure) is incorrect in claiming "recklessness".  Also, the blanking of the comments is a travesty unwarranted, and should be undone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, why are any of these actions (blanking of talk page comments, AFDing based on subject's desire for deletion) being taken before there's even been an identification to OTRS? Or am I mistaken and his identity has been confirmed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with BMK; unless there's been an OTRS confirmation of identity, I think we're jumping the gun on the AfD. I also agree that the discussion that got blanked didn't impugn Lidz personally or professionally, though it suggested (based on what I understand to be pretty clear behavioral evidence) that somebody was engaged in conduct that appeared promotional on our page about Lidz. And, contrary to what the IP above says about legal threats, it was a legal threat. I'm not sure it's to the level of a NLT block, but it's definitely disruptive, and I have no doubt it was made to chill participation. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding confirmation of identity, it's a private matter that's being handled offline. As for the blanked section, I agree there was no bright-line misconduct in the section, but BLP concerns shouldn't be brushed aside, and on the balance I felt that courtesy blanking the section was a harmless way to address the editor's concern. If anyone really wants to read what was there it's available in the history. And as for the statement being a legal threat: if it was, it was retracted, so the issue is moot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ivanvector: I would never suggest brushing aside a legitimate BLP concern, but I think it was pretty clear that this was being badly misread by the person claiming to be Lidz, most probably based on the "journalism professor"'s characterization of the discussion to them. Regarding the identification of the account and IP as Lidz, if it turns out that they cannot identify themselves to the satisfaction of OTRS, I would suggest that the discussion be un-blanked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd feel much more comfortable with the trusted, trained volunteers who staff OTRS handling identity verification than it being a "private matter" and "handled offline". This is one of the reasons OTRS was created, so we weren't handling potentially private information on an ad hoc basis. Honestly, I'm surprised to hear this suggestion that BLP concerns are being brushed aside: they're certainly not. As to the retraction of the threat: that may be satisfactory from a NLT perspective, but it does not remove the harm done by the editor claiming to be Lidz in making a legal threat deliberately to stifle legitimate discussion about unidentified individuals' promotional activity on his Wikipedia biography. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact I did mean to go through OTRS or send instructions to the editor, except I couldn't figure out from the OTRS pages what to tell them to do. Instead I emailed Arbcom, which I suppose isn't much removed from screaming into the void, but that is what I meant by "being handled offline"; I wasn't intending to provide further details. Arbcom hasn't responded; if someone more familiar with OTRS would like to take over that aspect of this whole thing, please do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Not a legal threat - per Wikipedia:No legal threats A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. See also: WP:LIBEL. Recommended course of action is an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>- Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "discussion" of libel – which was decidedly more than a simple discussion, as lawyers have already been consulted: "The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation ... Wikipedia's bylaws state that it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons." – is only one issue. Steps are being taken on the basis of the account User:FranzLidz being the actual real life Franz Lidz, so identification is also required, since there's a non-zero possibility that the "journalism professor"  who got so strangely upset about the Franz Lidz article being edited and the user "FranzLidz" are the same person. I'm pinging  and, two editors whose names I am familiar with who are listed as OTRS members to see if they have anything to add to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not a legal threat. A legal threat (linked at WP:NLT) is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party. That is "(If you do not do X,) I intend to take legal action"; not "I asked my lawyer and they think it's potentially libelous". I realise that this seems like splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction. And, while speculation on the identities of editors is profoundly uninteresting, I am pleased that is looking into it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because it's not a legal threat that rises to the level of a NLT block does not render it non-disruptive. Going on a website and making it clear you have legal counsel investigating matters published on that website has a distinct chilling effect—no matter how preposterous an actual lawsuit might be, as it would be in this case. And, frankly, this is why people make these statements: to silence speech they dislike and to coerce speech of which they approve. The object of the threat made on the talk page was precisely this. We're not talking about someone unsophisticated here, either. This sort of conduct honestly should draw a block. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly right, and although WP:NLT doesn't say so explicitly (but should) it de facto recognizes "chilling effect" as one oif the primary reasons for disallowing legal threats when it says that "Repeats of legal threats on the user's talk page have limited scope for disruption or chilling effect", implying that legal threats elsewhere have a broader scope for disruption and chilling effect. (The policy needs some disambiguation.)  Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I am looking in to it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Identify confirmation I can confirm that OTRS is in receipt of an email from Franz Lidz and I have confirmed his identity.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Just FYI, it won't surprise anyone that OTRS agents are not permitted to reveal the contents of email sent to OTRS, but it is also true that we cannot even confirm the existence of such an email in many cases. When someone sends a permission statement into permissions, I believe it is okay to acknowledge the existence of the email (although not the contents beyond confirmation that an acceptable license has or has not been provided). I will make the argument that someone writing in to confirm their identity to info EN implicitly expects that this fact can be reported elsewhere, but until I get confirmation from other OTRS admin's that this should be an exception to the normal rule for emails to info EN, we require explicit permission from the subject before even acknowledging the existence of an email. That has happened in this case. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to explore this a bit, if identity is confirmed, but permission to make it public is withheld, do we still entertain changes in articles, etc. at the request of the confirmed editor? It would seem that we shouldn't, as only the OTRS team member would be aware, or the admin they notify to make article deletion, and the community would not be able to participate in those discussions, not knowing that the identity has been confirmed. It would seem to me that part of the "cost" of having one's objections seriously considered is to have the account identity publicly confirmed, since one can simply use a "throw-away" account to do so, at not breach of privacy to the subject. Not an issue here, obviously, but it would be good to know for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI in order to determine if User:FranzLidz used the three IP addresses (same person) to comment on Talk:Franz Lidz before they created the FranzLidz account. The SPI was filed before I saw Sphilbrick's confirmation above, but does not rest on the question of whether FranzLidz' is or is not Franz Lidz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In what I feel is the best interest of Wikipedia, I am withdrawing the SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

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

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is being vandalised by multiple new users who appear to be socks of User:Bajirao1007. An image which he admits is his brother has twice been uploaded and speedily deleted from Commons and  then placed on our project  placed here here,here here here by Bajirao nd here. Also see User_talk:Bajirao1007. Even if his brother, clearly a minor, does have this illness it is unacceptable to be uploading these images to the commons and then putting them in this article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The article has been semi-protected for 2 days, no one has been blocked, so we'll see if the vandalism starts again when the protection expires, you might also consider filing a report as SPI. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Insults by MjolnirPants
Over the past month or so, has made a point of insulting me when we interact:

 * Calling me a liar here on AN/I:

 * Trying to be clever by deploying insults like "moron" and "idiot" with just enough plausible deniability:

I don't feel I should have to put up with this sort of behavior. I am requesting whatever sanction against MjolnirPants is deemed appropriate.

On a note about procedure: I would appreciate it if the people who discuss this request remain limited to

 * 1) MjolnirPants, who of course has the right to speak in their own defense.
 * 2) Whichever admins choose to review this request.

I expect that several editors who edit in the American Politics subject area will want to comment, but this request runs the risk of turning into a massive back-and-forth. I'd simply like the question of these insults to be handled here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is extraordinary. You wish to exclude the witnesses who have seen your behavior over the past year? Wouldn't that rather limit the information available to who ever closes this matter?  SPECIFICO  talk  00:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Point 1 of procedure is that you are put under the same exact microscope as MjolnirPants. So no, this discussion shall not remain limited to MjolnirPants. Point 2 of procedure is that non-admins who are involved or who can present evidence are free to do so and that experienced veterans can provide input or guidance as they deem fit - as I am doing right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't comment here too often, but this is fucking ridiculous. The very method in which this "complaint" was filed should be grounds for dismissal. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right on top: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." and WP:BOOMERANG: "There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases, a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report." The fact that you request users to abide by your "rules" is fucking ridiculous.  Callmemirela 🍁  talk 01:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, none of your requirements can or will be met. Anyone filing a charge against another editor on AN/I will have their own behavior examined as well, and AN/I is open to the opinions of any Wikipedian.Let me start the ball rolling by looking at your editing history. You've been editing here for 11 years, since 2006, and yet you've only made 2,323 edits. Of those edits, a mere 33%, or 765 edits, have been to articles, the things that we're supposedly here to write, expand and correct, the basic unit of the encyclopedia.  On the other hand, 66.2%  of your edits (1,535 in number) have been to Talk, User talk, and Wikipediaspace.  My observation is that you spend a fair number of those edits complaining that Wikipedia's consensus-determination procedure is broken, "not fair", and needs a complete overhaul, much as you did in a current discussion on AN, where you referred to it as "mob rule".  You appear to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and in doing so, you exhibit an alarming degree of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, totally ignoring the valid, logical and reasonable arguments of your oppponents -- It's no wonder that such behavior would get under the skin of some editors.  I myself have been the victim of your use of gross mischaracterizations of others' arguments in order to attempt to win a point.In short, I really think that, overall, you are WP:NOTHERE to contribute to the encyclopedia, your article edits being clearly incidental to your commentary edits. I'm not certain if your behavior is egregious enough to warrant a sanction, but I do think that you are in no position whatsoever to criticize the behavior of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say much, but I will say this. The "insults" linked above were already the subject of some admin shopping by Thuc, when none of the three admins they contacted were willing to block me the way he kept insisting they should. Also, I stand by my accusation that Thuc was lying in that thread. Thuc continued to insist that an admin never provided any evidence for a block, despite dozen of editors and more than a few admins pointing out that the admin in question has provided evidence multiple times. Not to mention the multiple times said admin provided evidence. So I don't, for one second, buy that Thuc honestly believed his claims in that thread to be true. No intelligent person could, and I have opined on more than one occasion that Thuc is an intelligent person. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pants is one of a long list of editors that Thucydides411 follows around to hurl personal aspersions and attacks and to forum shop seeking sanctions and enforcement. Here's one gratuitous thread where Thuc bludgeons  about some more-or-less ordinary comment Drmies made about Thuc's nemesis .  I'll look for similar examples where Thuc goes after me,  and others. I won't say more without diffs.  I will say that Thuc edits article talk and noticeboard pages nearly exclusively -- mainly either to attack other edtiors or to complain that WP is "no fair" essentially because we insist on representing the WEIGHT of mainstream sources, which don't happen to be the sources Thuc particularly respects.  I would say that Thuc is WP:NOTHERE.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The longer this stays open, the more likely a BOOM. I suggest the filer withdraw and stop wasting editor time. Objective3000 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole "you're not an idiot so don't talk like one" or whatever being a personal attack is silly. That entire thread on my talk page was silly too. I have not yet seen this editor's good side. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

German federal election, 2017
Could we have some admin eyes on this please. An editor has repeatedly tried to add some forecast results to the infobox despite there being multiple forecasts around (see the German language article). I have reverted a couple of times but an about to go to sleep and see it's been readded again despite a request to stop on the talkpage. Cheers, Number   5  7  23:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access for Megerflit
Since I got no response or had taken action from the admin who had blocked this user, I'm going to ask this here.

Can any admin revoke TPA privileges for Megerflit? Looking at the talk page, I see nothing but personal attacks and threats mainly directed at admins who are involved with this user; this user is certainly WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally diffs are required as evidence, I'll just offer some select quotes;
 * Why am I not astounded that the unbridled arrogance that is the hallmark of your nest of vipers would prevent you from recognizing any of my comments ... as wholly valid OBSERVATIONS about your conduct and procedures, and not just "ranting and insults"?
 * Believe me, Shirley, had I honestly intended to "unload" on your squishy tribe of Wikignats, I fear they may have required intensive therapy and warm cocoa for months.
 * You people really are twisted in your noggins if you honestly believe you acted in any kind of legitimate and effective manner throughout this exchange - Personal comment; Noggins? British editor? Nick Bougas is an American - Megerflit seems to claim to be Nick Bougas -, I don't know that I've ever heard of Americans using the word noggin before.
 * You also seem to have a gigantic chip on your shoulder over being unpaid toadies ... maybe the company should toss your sniffy pack of prima donnas a little folding cash so you can quit taking out your suppressed rage impulses on the hapless Wiki subjects. - Personal comment: Umm, the sniffy pack of prima donnas bit is a bit rich, I mean come on.
 * I can't help but suspect that therein lies the rub ... an unaccomplished slug with no social skills, who will undoubtedly never have a Wikipage of his own, is apparently drunk on being in the unique position to banish those who can handily see right through him.

 * Oh, and all of the above, is just one comment.
 * I would be happy to consider any evidence that Megerflit could provide of this though; I routinely received some real unhinged and nasty displays from your "collegial" colleagues. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * This user also made a legal threat after this report is filed. theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking through the interactions with Mr Bougas, I note that there was hardly any real interaction with him beyond some boilerplate templates and, in the article history, a whole load of fighting with him over maintenance tags, reverts, frustration and not a few insults in edit summaries. I also note that there was minimal discussion with him outside of the edit summaries. Is anyone actually surprised that the subject of the article would explode after having been treated the way he has? Blackmane (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --Did you miss Bri's post? Winged Blades Godric 03:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not miss it, but no discussion was borne from that, while the vast bulk of interactions with Mr Bougas was via edit summaries. Hence, my comment minimal discussion. Blackmane (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have revoked Megerflit's talk page access. Nothing productive is happening there. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

A35821361 is NOTHERE
Hello, this is pretty much my first time posting at ANI. Basically, A35821361 seems to be only here to criticise the Baha'i Faith and to attack it. His response to being blocked for edit warring was to blame the "members of the Baha'i Faith" for it. He also complained about how "While 36 hours is a brief time to be banned, this complaint is a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order" -- quote from the diff I've linked to,, I humbly submit this editor is clearly NOTHERE. I'm sorry for how poor my post looks...just not the best at this.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your diff doesn't work, and I can't figure out what you intended. Please create a diff the way it says here. Also, it might be useful to mention which article he was edit warring on. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

Fixed the diff, and A35821361 was edit-warring on the Baha'i Faith page. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 * A diff from May is not indicative of a current problem. However, poking into User:A35821361's contrib history, I'm not sure WP:NOTHERE is the right issue, but it does look like A35821361 is hostile to Baha'i, and is prone to edit-warring. I don't want to step into this mess, but think some admin or another should. They should probably also notify the user. Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I would like to thank Argyriou (talk) for mentioning my username here, otherwise I would have no inkling that this discussion was underway. In any case, it is true that I frequently contribute to topics related to the  Bahá'í Faith. As my contributions are sourced from objective, third-party references they are not always in concordance with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order.  This has often led to the reversion of these contributions and allegations that they are somehow "hostile," when in fact they are unbiased. If you read the continuation of the quote which <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) has linked to above, it continues, "In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater)."  It saddens me that these tactics are now attempted in Wikipedia.  Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Not a wikipedia contributor, but just thought i'd chime in to say that some of your first contributions included an entirely uncited claim that Baha'u'llah sold slaves to pay off debts with zero sources, neutral or hostile, given. Getting better at finding citations to support an editorial agenda does not make that editorial agenda cease to exist. None of those academics was actually excommunicated or claimed to have been excommunicated, the closest thing would be Juan Cole claiming to have been threatened with excommunication (with the only source for that claim being Cole himself).UrielvIII (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Not a Wikipedia editor", indeed, considering that was your first edit. How did you find your way here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I lurk pages I'm interested in, (feel I don't have the writing/citing ability to contribute up to wiki standards though), user in question is a fairly active contributor in a lot of them so I've been lurking his contribution log as well (apologies if that's against wikipedia policy. Feel free to delete if it is).UrielvIII (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A35 certainly seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have a theory as to why he so antagonistic to Baha'i, but that would be casting aspersions. Suggest a topic ban. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP you're using began editing today, but you've been around: you know about WP:casting aspersions, for instance. If you have an account your normally edit with, you should have filed this complaint with that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I previously brought this up at the noticeboard here and got no response. I later tried more specific complaints about biographies of living persons here and here, also with no response. I think A35821361 was successful at scaring away any admins from looking past the surface by simply declaring himself to be unbiased. Anyone looking through edits and talk pages would recognize deception, but that takes time. The edit warring on biographies of living persons is still ongoing. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  06:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I would welcome anyone to look at my edit and contribution history to Wikipedia, and compare it to the edit and contribution history of other editors on the same articles. Aside from being sourced from objective, third party sources, my edits and contributions are entirely compliant with the guidelines of Wikipedia.  On the other hand, one should consider what the objectives of some of the other editors are.  For example,  Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and called me a "deceitful attacker" on my talk page.  More recently, there has been systematic reversions and deletions to the biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing institution of the Bahá'í Faith whose decisions are deemed infallible by believers.  The reason given for these reversions and deletions are that the members of the Universal House of Justice lack notability, when in fact in addition to their religious service to the Bahá'í Administrative Order many these individuals have led successful careers as academics, authors, artists, actors, and the heads of award-winning NGOs.  Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

 * This is comical. If there is an admin listening I'd be happy to lay out in detail why A35821361's last comment is deception (maybe delusion?) in line with how he has behaved for the last 9 months. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Comments at Articles for deletion/Thornton Chase may be of interest. Smkolins (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Indeed, the article for Thornton Chase and the discussion for the AfD is demonstrative. Thornton Chase was an insurance salesman and is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and priod to the AfD proposal almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í.  This contrasts sharply with the articles of the members of Universal House of Justice members that have been systematically deleted, which were sourced from multiple different sources regarding various accomplishments of the individuals covered in their respective articles.  Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Simply false. The biographies were stuffed with references that don't mention the person. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A cursory look at Thornton Chase's article shows citations from a large number of independent newspapers. A skim of the contents of the article also shows that it covers his notable service in the Civil War. (although from the talk page these may have been added recently). By contrast the article for one House of Justice member, Stephen Birkland, contains citations exclusively from either Baha'i sources or Juan Cole, a former Baha'i who leveled accusations of misconduct against Birkland (the article that is not by a Baha'i or Cole only mentions Birkland by citing Cole's statements). Neither of those sources are neutral third parties. In any case the article only contains three paragraphs and could easily be merged into a larger article which is why I assume it would have been deleted (although I can't say that for certain) UrielvIII (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair the Chase article has been developed a ton since it was nominated. But A35821361's skills as a researcher and knowledge are far from mundane. I didn't have to look hard at all for many obvious third party sources. And that's aside from simply looking at the footnotes of Dr. Stockman's research. A35821361 didn't bother while he/she is perfectly willing to spend a great deal of time researching very obscure people for possible personal relationships to other things and beyond. In short he'd rather delete the article on Chase and work on some of these others even if many people agree that Chase is notable and the others several people have found unfounded. Smkolins (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's his prerogative to work on whatever he wants. There is nothing wrong with nominating for deletion. BTW, great job improving the article. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've always tried to research up rather than dismiss down. It's odd to me that he creates the Robert Stockman article and then dismisses a key subject of Stockman's research for decades. Smkolins (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * For added context, it appears the user in question has posted to the following website accusing people of censoring him: https://bahaicensorship.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/bahai-faith-and-slavery-an-example-of-how-bahais-control-information-on-wikipedia/

The most obvious differences between the version of the article in the link and the current "censored" version on wikipedia are that the entirely unreferenced and unsupported claims that Baha'u'llah sold a slave to pay off debts and that attempts were made to have the book 'Black Pearls' suppressed have been removed.

My own thoughts from some browsing the talk pages of some of the more contentious Baha'i articles are that terms like 'official narrative' and 'excommunication' have been used which paints a picture of a point of view being oppressed and marginalized. However repeatedly editing pages to add content deleted/edited by others, dropping out of discussions on said edits/deletions rather than arguing ones point of view until an agreement is reached and adding inflammatory uncited information an is not a reasonable way to participate in a collaborative project.

To my knowledge Baha'is don't actually hold any positions of authority over wikipedia, with everyone being on more or less equal footing, making accusations of censorship and prosletyzing on a third party website seem counterproductive if the goal is to contribute to an unbiased tone on wikipedia. UrielvIII (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * This is the first time I have heard of this web page. The content therein I had shared on Reddit, relating to a discussion on Bahá’í censorship and information control. The owner of the web site you linked to must have cut-and-paste the content from Reddit into his website. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which website it was published to is largely irrelevant. You have complained that you have been called a 'deceitful attacker' and your edits interpreted as hostile on wikipedia, while leveling similar accusations against people you're in disagreement with on an entirely different website rather than raising the issue in the context of an article or with wikipedia adminsUrielvIII (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, upon reading the nothere rules, your articles claims of a cadre devoted to eliminating facts to proselytize is an accusation of a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", something against wikipedias rules. If this 'cadre' does not actually exist (which in my opinion it does not) then editing with the intention of combating their 'official narrative' would in itself constitute a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia".UrielvIII (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. Where appropriate, I have engaged other editors in discussions on talk pages in relevant topics and articles, and if you have read them, you will note that topics such as Bahá’í review, censorship, information control, and the posthumous editing of literature have on occasion been discussed when relevant. What is ironic is that the endeavor of building a comprehensive encyclopedia is undermined not by my efforts but by those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards.  Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

as can be seen on where I specifically create a licence with the words "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:". Or with the licence at the top of my user page where I license all of my contributions. For someone who wants to see the issue resolved amicably, I have to say you've got off to a very poor start. This discussion belongs at Template talk:cc-by-sa-3.0 or at Village pump. It's disgraceful that an experienced editor like yourself takes an issue that you want to refer to the community to a noticeboard asking for administrator's action. Were you simply hoping one of your fellow admin chums was going to take your side against a mere peon like me? --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I see no issue here. The user uploaded the image, say it was their creation in an image information tags, and forgot to include a license tag. The image is a rendering, and its use seems consistent with a self-made image. Taking the uploader's statement that it is their own work at face value, then RexxS applying a reasonable free image tag is completely in line. The upload probably should confirm that was the license, but that's it. Far from an adminstrator issue, and more a lack of good faith on the OP here to assume RexxS was being disruptive. --M ASEM (t) 00:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Masem. The uploader of File:G'sPB expl2.jpg is Giano.  Giano did not specify a license tag at upload.  RexxS added the Cc-by-sa-3.0 tag, claiming that was what Giano wanted.  The problem I'm seeing is that RexxS cannot legally release a file on behalf of Giano without violating Giano's copyright.  Of course, if Giano acknowledges that this is acceptable, then we can close this thread.  -  F ASTILY   00:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Giano does not edit as often as he used to. And who can blame him when his work is treated like that. But what's the rush? Give him a few days to get back to Wikipedia, rather than setting a week's deadline for his work to be deleted. That's no way to treat content contributors. Seriously, what do you think he's going to say when you ask him if he licenses the files as CC-BY-SA? My position is that he also created a page, User:Giano/Exploding palazzo, with just the (unlicensed) images that he also created on it. When he clicked save, he licensed the content of that page as CC-BY-SA. OK, so I'm being inventive here, but my logic is sound, unless images are no longer content. --RexxS (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Who's rushing? It looks as if you are the only person who's rushing. If it's likely that needs some time to fix this, then I don't see a big issue with leaving the discussions open for a month or two. That's regularly done if the involved editors think that an issue can be solved but that more time is needed to solve it. Giano's comment suggests that he is confused about what the problem is but that he can solve it if the problem simply is explained for him. However, your comments to the discussions create a wall of text and risk causing extra confusion. Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You tell me who's rushing. See for example, (that you edited) with a great big box plastered across the top saying "Unless the copyright and licensing status is provided, the file will be deleted after Tuesday, 3 October 2017." I simply provided the status as I understood it to prevent the inappropriate deletion. I see no effort by anyone to open discussions, let alone keep them going for a month or two. I would be delighted to be proven wrong. --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That "great big box" was added by User:Jon Kolbert, not by me.
 * I see no effort by anyone to open discussions If you check my contribution to that file, you will see that I added a box which links to a discussion about the file. In other words, a discussion about the file has been opened. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Would people please resist the must-be-fixed-now bureaucratic approach. Yes, copyright is important but it is obvious that Giano focuses on developing content rather than filling in forms, and a polite discussion when he has some time will see any problems fixed. Also, it would be desirable to find a procedure more likely to benefit the encyclopedia than adding sixteen proposed deletions to User talk:Giano in the last eight days. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * What John said. Fastily, my point above was that ANI is not the place to be thrashing this out. As RexxS mentions, you've made zero attempt to discuss this first and zero attempt to discuss this with the person at the heart of all this, Giano.  Giano is not the type of person to go about and flirt with iffy copyright tags in order to see his images up in lights and I would ask you to AGF until you've investigated this fully. How about the numerous tags some idiot has plastered over his page, Banksy style, without a thought for WP:DTTR?  Now, for heavens sake, can we please close this and get back to improving the encyclopaedia?   Cassianto Talk   06:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What did was to start a discussion about the file. You seem to claim that Fastily shouldn't have started a discussion about the file but instead discussed the file. That's just a different way of saying the same thing. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * 1) RexxS should not add copyright notices to files created and uploaded by other editors. It should have been discussed on his talk page first though, even though (judging from the FfD discussions and the reply here) this would have been fruitless.
 * 2) Giano was well aware of this issue before it was brought here, since he replied here on the 19th. He has been editing on the 21st and the 22nd as well. Fram (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * You don't get to tell me what edits I can or can't make. There is no policy or even guidance preventing an editor making a note of the copyright status of of a file anywhere. If you think otherwise, then let's see the policy you're relying on. As I demonstrated clearly above, the cc-by-sa-3.0 template does not constitute a licence, merely a notification. Clarifying the status of a file is improving the encyclopedia, and I intend to get back to doing that as soon as this charade is over.
 * Giano last edited on the 22 September, which is 5 days ago. The issue here was not raised until 26 September. Please see his talk page and retract your inaccurate characterisation of Giano. No doubt he was upset by the volume of unjustified deletion notifications bombing his talk page over the preceding week. Since he regularly takes breaks of 1, 2, or 3 weeks, there is every chance that he hasn't even seen the current crop of discourteous notifications - especially as the most recent three taken to FFD weren't even notified to his talk page. If I hadn't intervened, he would quite probably returned only to find that his hard work had been carelessly thrown away by folks who are not interested in improving the encyclopedia, but only in following bureaucratic procedures to the exclusion of all else. Anybody who cared about the work done by one of our finest content contributors would have left a note on his talk page, gently asking him to provide a licence for those images. When dealing with adults, it is generally understood that persuasion is far more productive than threats. --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see Copyrights, a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations": "Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf." You are not the copyright holder, so please indicate what prior permission you had to "license on their behalf", legally speaking. Giano had not released these, he released a page he created which had links to these files.
 * What "inaccurate characterisation". I indicated that he responded at the file deletion discussion on the 19th, and made further unrelated edits in the next few days. Fram (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My position remains that I believe in good faith that when Giano saved a page consisting solely of those images, he agreed at that point that his contributions in that edit becomes licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, and I made it clear when I added the tag to the description page that was the basis of my edit.
 * You stated Giano was well aware of this issue before it was brought here ... and yet "this issue" concerns the files displayed on User:Giano/Exploding palazzo, all but one of which were nominated for deletion on 26 September, which led me to note the CC-BY-SA status on the same day. Given that he confused the sourcing and licensing in his comment on 19 September, Giano clearly is not aware of the issue here. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have claimed or even implied that you acted in bad faith, and if I did I apologize. Acting in good faith doesn't mean that you can't unknowingly violate a policy. Fram (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that RexxS's argument that when an editor uploads a file and uses it on any page, then he licenses it, is very sound. There may be some twist of copyright law, at which I do not pretend to be an expert, that makes it not so, but it resonates with me. To me that says that RexxS had a good faith basis for what he was doing and this should be closed and there be further discussion as necessary on appropriate talk pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that RexxS's argument that when an editor uploads a file and uses it on any page, then he licenses it, is very sound. There may be some twist of copyright law, at which I do not pretend to be an expert, that makes it not so, but it resonates with me. To me that says that RexxS had a good faith basis for what he was doing and this should be closed and there be further discussion as necessary on appropriate talk pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that RexxS's argument that when an editor uploads a file and uses it on any page, then he licenses it, is very sound. There may be some twist of copyright law, at which I do not pretend to be an expert, that makes it not so, but it resonates with me. To me that says that RexxS had a good faith basis for what he was doing and this should be closed and there be further discussion as necessary on appropriate talk pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * For whatever it's worth, User:Fastily is absolutely correct here regarding the license. CCBYSA 3.0 is a legal document, and is not just the way to license free images. Even if the image was explicitly intended to be uploaded for unrestricted free use, there are many ways to do that, of which 3.0 is only one, and you can't agree to this on behalf of someone else unless you had something like power of attorney. If the image is deleted, it can always be restored, and all it would literally take is a comment from the uploader to the effect of "unless otherwise stated, I freely license all my image creations under ". But the CCBYSA 3.0 agreement under an edit summary refers to the contributions in that edit, and not to an image upload done as a separate material contribution.   G M G  talk   13:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is, if you look at Giano's past file contributions, they have uploaded works they created with CC-BY-3.0 for example. RexxS seeing the missing tags, but all other factors being similar (self-claimed work, etc.) it is reasonably fair extrapolation to apply the missing CC-BY-3.0 tag here. Yes, Giano should be notified and asked to clarify and make sure it is correct, but there is zero need to chew RexxS's head off for taking a completely fair step to make sure contributions are kept under our tight image policy (requiring licenses to be listed). --M ASEM  (t) 13:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean "past file contributions" like File:Man in wig.jpg, uploaded as PD-Self and deleted as a Copyright violation in July 2017 amidst protests from Giano? Fram (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically a copyright violation, yes. But if that example (a joke image that the copyright holder was aware of) is a problem, we really need all editors to sign that they do not have a sense of humour before creating an account. We should not rip each other's heads off for not dotting every i in the licensing of our own files. —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the reason for the claimed copyvio was not only that the part of the image taken from LHvU was not attributed, but that the other part of the image (it as some kind of mashup) was not attributed and of unknown origin, even after the FfD discussion. Fram (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the "protest from Giano" was a joke, and that FFD was (just like this discussion) a complete waste of precious bandwidth. —Kusma (t·c) 14:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean. If it seems stupid and nit picky... that's because copyright is stupid and nit picky. AGF applies to editors, but not to licenses, as much as life would be easier if it did. It really either is or it ain't, and this ain't. There's not much room there for reasonably fair extrapolations. That CC license means that the images are as likely as anything to end up in a book for sale, or someone's professional website. So the legal stuff needs to be right from the start. It's not often things boil down to right and wrong, but only one side here is on the correct side of copyright. But, like I said, have the uploader put some sort of blanket but explicit statement on their talk when they get back, and that should be enough for other's to apply it on their behalf, and to undelete anything that's been deleted. It isn't a crisis. It's just something broken that needs fixed.  G M G  talk   13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, copyright is important, we shouldn't guess, particularly when there is legitimate doubt that the "self-made" claim doesn't apply. I just think that given the situation before RexxS tagged the images, that putting the images in context of where they were, Giano's past contributions (clearly on classic architecture), and Giano's self-made claim (which we need to AGF for sure on), and that we do not allow users to upload non-free they have self-made (we expect you to contribute any work you make freely), this had to qualify for a free license, so tagging CC-BY-3.0 does zero harm. At worst, Giano may have wanted to put it as PD, but switching from CC-BY-3.0 to PD is not harmful at all (it relaxes the license that much more). It would be a problem if we were "under"-tagging the copyright, and that the uploaded wanted something more restrictive. --M ASEM (t) 14:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is just something I'm used to from being on commons too much, but these types of discussions are not a matter of consensus. There is only one right answer, and every other answer is wrong, regardless of how many caveats it has. You can't enter into legal agreements on behalf of someone else. Whatever "but", "and", or "also" follows that is irrelevant. I'm not trying to be curt; it just really is that simple. (BTW I'm not really commenting on the interpersonal stuff, just the licensing issue.)  G M G  talk   14:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to add "... on Wikipedia". There are all kinds of mechanisms for entering into legal agreements on behalf of someone else, but Wiki (rightly) does not allow their use. Anmccaff (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Anywhere, in the absence of something like power of attorney, articles of incorporation, etc., i.e. the explicit consent to allow others to consent on your behalf, or having that decision made legally in a court and legally given over to someone else as a guardian, or having little or no right to consent legally to begin with, such as small children.  G M G  talk   14:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, yeah, those are several examples of common exceptions, yup, so why start it with "no?" You left out the two commonest, spousal action in common-property areas and a pattern of ratified consent.  None of which, except for open, well known agency, mean anything to Wiki.  Anmccaff (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the above could be valid on-wiki, but would require an email to OTRS in order to document. I made a caveat for "something like power of attorney" far above, but obviously none of these really relevant to the current situation.  G M G  talk   15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect we are mostly ferociously agreeing here, but I think the point has to be made that TPTB on Wiki appear to want to keep away from the edge of what is straightforwardly legal. They'd rather lose a picture or two than waste money establishing the exact boundaries of usage rights, and they are rightly aware that their pockets are deep enough to make them a target. Kosher isn't enough; gotta be glatt kosher. Anyway, this is peripheral, your central point, that we have to be more careful with usage rights than we have been above, is absolutely correct. Anmccaff (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In a case as with these images, losing them would not be a huge loss, but let's consider a hypothetical: a user comes along and provides us with a free photo of Kim Jong-un (a living figure we've been striving for one for a long time), stating it as their own work uploaded under their name and stating they are putting up as a free license image, and there's no question of the validity of being their own work or legitimacy of the image, but they forget to include the license tag, and for some personal reason, they do not edit for several months following that. Losing that image because of a missing license tag when all indicators show that we know they wanted a free license seems really really silly. Someone else tagging it with CC-BY-SA-3.0 is perhaps the best solution in this type of case as it assures the most rights retained with the image uploader (under their statement for a free license), and if they come back and really wanted, say, CC-BY-3.0 or even PD (giving away more rights), that license can be changed without harm. It's trying to recapture rights that is a problem, so tagging PD initially would be a problem. There needs to be some common sense here. --M ASEM (t) 16:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The correct course of action is to delete the image, and leave the user a note so that when they come back, they can indicate how they would like to license it. When they do, we can restore it, and use it accordingly. In the meantime, we aren't giving literally everyone in the world permission to reuse, modify, and even sell this image under a license we presumed the uploader had the intention of using. It's the off-wiki use that runs into problems, because these people are legally using the image based on a license that you or I weren't permitted to apply. Copyright isn't an on-wiki rule, and so it's not something we can IAR.  G M G  talk   17:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't make any assumptions of the uploader's intentions. on Commons is a speedy deletion template for a reason. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed.
 * Licensing statements are only valid if stated by the copyright holder (or by someone else who holds a valid power of attorney). We don't know what licence the uploader meant to choose or if the uploader even intended to violate WP:IUP by uploading a user-created non-free file (which would then be deleted for violating WP:NFCC). I assume that the uploader meant to license the files, but we can't add any undisclosed licences to the file information pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Usually I would agree under no circumstances should editors add licences on that editors behalf ... however .... the source does clearly state and I quote "I (Giano (talk)) created this work entirely by myself." so all's one needs to do is go through Giano's uploads and then use the licence on the last own-uploaded image which is exactly what RexxS did - In all honestly RexxS used some initiative and as such should be thanked not dragged here, FWIW I would prefer Giano to use the licences because it avoids this really. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, even if I believe that Giano's saving of the page affirmed the copyright of its contents. I mean, if I created a page using the visual editor consisting of just an image that I had created and uploaded without a licence, why wouldn't my agreement to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence when I saved apply to the image I had created? There's no "wikicode" in that scenario to act as a red herring, and the VE even offers to do an upload for you as you add an image. Nevertheless, I accept you may have a different opinion. For what it's worth, I now have a template at the top of my user page explicitly licensing all my contributions, and I hope I could persuade Giano to adopt something similar to avoid future unpleasantness. --RexxS (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (Which brings up a good point that if the Visual Editor is not prompting editors that upload images through it to add a license, free or not, that is a serious problem for any WMF project and the resolution on image use. License info must be added to any uploaded image and VE doesn't seem to be asking for this). --M ASEM (t) 14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS It's... just different. The copyright of the image doesn't have anything to do with wiki. It is created when the image is created. You license the "creative contribution" (however small), of putting an image where there was none previously (on the page, not uploading on the wiki) when you click save. But that doesn't address the original copyright assumed to exist when the image began to exist.
 * So, for example, when I add a non-free image to a page, my creative contribution of "putting that image in that spot in particular" is licensed under CCBYSA 3, but that doesn't in any way transfer to the image, obviously, because it's a copyrighted image added under a claim of fair use.  G M G  talk   14:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the issue seems to be that Giano is not correctly licencing images he uploads. The solution would seem to be a community imposed editing restriction on Giano, prohibiting him from uploading any images unless they are suitably licenced at the time of uploading. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's different when you put in a nonfree image, or quote text from a nonfree source. In that instance, you lack the authority to release that text under any license besides what the copyright holder wants. But when you upload your own images, or contribute text you wrote, you do have the authority to agree to the TOU, including that whatever you contribute is released under CC-BY-SA-3.0. If you have the right to do that, and you click save, you're agreeing to that. Nothing in that agreement says that only text contributed that way is affected. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No. You are exactly wrong.  G M G  talk   18:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong that editors do not have the authority to release material they don't hold the copyright to, or that they do have the right to release material they do hold the copyright to? And why? Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I... really don't want to explain everything again. The licensing of the image requires an explicit license on the image, which is put there by the uploader because they are the ones who own the copyright to it. Explicitly non-free doesn't matter, because every image is presumed to be non-free unless it is appropriately licensed otherwise. Neither the TOU nor the edit summary disclaimer override that. Every piece of media is a separate creation that comes with its own implicit copyright applied in the moment of its creation. The creative contribution made by adding an image to a page, which is covered under the disclaimer, does not actually cover the image itself. Otherwise fair use would make no sense, because every fair use image is added in a contribution covered under the disclaimer. You cannot armchair license something by playing fast and loose with unrelated policies or assumed intentions. The uploader either did or did not explicitly give up their intellectual property rights to this piece of intellectual property in particular, full stop.  G M G  talk   20:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * At the risk of dragging this out, I simply disagree with some of your assumptions and assertions. The licensing of an image requires nothing more than the owner of the copyright agreeing a licence. Nothing needs to be on the image at all. Of course the image is a separate piece of creative work, in that it can be isolated from other elements such as text or other images and may be licensed differently. You say that a creator who makes an image and makes a page can't license both at the same time. I say they can. You bring in the "fair use" red-herring. The creator of a page can't license an image they don't own the copyright to, so fair use is not