Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972

Edit warring, stubbornness, hypocrisy and repeated personal attacks by User:Curly Turkey

• Curly Turkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. Curly Turkey has been edit warring with me and Nardog on Ukiyo-e. We're changing the IPA so that it matches Help:IPA/Japanese, and this guy is continuously refusing to get the point that it's that guide that needs to be changed, not a particular transcription. Here are the relevant diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

On User talk:Nardog, this guy has repeatedly called me a disruption and a troll after continuously refusing to tell me why he didn't raise the issue on Help talk:IPA/Japanese. The first time, he said that my message is 'not an answer to the question posed' - well, no kidding! The question was to Nardog, not me. I didn't have to answer it.

One of his most recent actions was to call me a 'commited troll' and then telling me to 'f off' after I posted an edit war warning on his talk page - see [7]. He also lied about my (only) revert on Ukiyo-e, calling it WP:POINT-y. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just been told to f off again, after notifying him of this discussion. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• As much as I agree with Mr KEBAB when it comes to the point of discussion, I find both Curly Turkey and Mr KEBAB less civil and respectful than they could have been and should have been. Mr KEBAB could have certainly spared some sarcasm, but Curly Turkey's personal attack is also very troubling. Nardog (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Templating the regulars is widely recognized as warranting a "fuck off". I stand by it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:TTR, WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • The Bushranger: Doesn't apply when the templating was deliberate trolling, as in this case. Mr KEBAB did not template me until I announced I was disengaging from him. The templating was pure retaliation, intended to provoke a response. Again, a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE—too hungry for drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
        • @Curly Turkey: Retaliation or not, that's hardly any of your business. The template was placed properly, and the essay you linked to is just that, an essay. It's not a policy, and nobody has to follow it (especially when they're not aware of it, like I was). Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
          • • Templating a regular in a dispute is tantamount to lighting petrol. You'd have got an expletive from me, too, had you have done it. It's not often I agree with CT, but on this point I support him entirely. Cassianto^Talk 12:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
              • @Cassianto: Then this should be made into a policy. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                • No it shouldn't. It's plain common sense. And I respect that more than I do some bullshit policy offered up by a WP:CIVIL cretin. Cassianto^Talk 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                  • @Cassianto: So let me get this straight: violating Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars which isn't a policy is enough of a reason to be cursed at, an action which actually is a violation of the WP:CIVIL policy. That's not hypocritical at all. I'm not sure if the second sentence is aimed at me, but if it is, you better watch your mouth buddy, now and should I ever template you (which I will, if it'll be appropriate). Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                    • • Read in to it what you will. You will anyway. Cassianto^Talk 17:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                        • Regardless of what you think of WP:CIVIL, it's still policy - and WP:NPA certainly is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                          • Fascinating. Cassianto^Talk 21:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                          • CIVIL applies to behaviour, The B, not just language—and in this case, the behaviour was disruptive, the language was not. Keep in mind who brought this imtesink of a tempest to the drahmah boards—the one who stirred the pot in the first place, and appears bent on keep it stirred. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
                          • Eeew ... my comment's touching Cassianto's ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, what people need to keep in mind is that you've never addressed the issue on Help talk:IPA/Japanese. That's the most important thing. There was no logical reason for me to back off and I didn't.

The only reason you think that (wrongly) is because you still want to have the last word. Let me break it to you: you're not entitled to that. If you want me to stop responding to you, you stop writing to me first. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I brought it up there before you kicked off this drahmah you refuse to let go of. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You posted there after I told you that I was starting a discussion here. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be your "smoking gun"? Good luck convincing anyone. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: That's not up to us to judge. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

What they also need to keep in mind that the second time you told me to f off was when I notified you about this discussion, which I'm required to do. That alone should warrant a (short) ban by definition, saint. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Bans and blocks are issued to prevent disruption, not to spank those we don't like. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I won't feed the troll by taking part in the discussion, expect to say that the supposed "edit-warring" was (a) commenting out the disputed IPA until the issue was resolved; and then (b) removing it entirely (at Nardog's suggestion) when Mr Kebab started editing even the hidden comment, accompanied with personal remarks. The text in question was under discussion at the time Mr Kebab made these disputed edits—in fact, Mr Kebab was involved in one of the discussions, and thus was aware of how disruptive this edit was. There are three separate discussions now underway (at WP:JAPAN, Nardog's talk page, and Help:IPA/Japanese, and Mr Kebab has not participated in a productive way in any of them—his comments are pretty much all personal remarks. A classic case of WP:NOTHERE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Curly Turkey: More personal attacks, great. You did edit war. Instead of talking it to the talk page or User talk:Nardog, you felt the need to have your version be the current one at all costs. This is a highly disruptive behavior.

I apologize for that edit summary (which isn't a hidden comment, not if you're a regular as you say) but not for the rest of my messages (given your behavior... please). And please, don't talk about User talk:Nardog anymore. You're the one who was continuously refusing to answer my question, and behaved as if answering your questions to Nardog was my responsibility, duty or whatever you thought.

A classic case of WP:NOTHERE? That is a laughable manipulation. Anyone can check my contribs (which, of course, you've never bothered to do) to see how productive an editor I am. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"My" version of the text was gone before you edited the article, so obviously I was not protecting "my" version of the article "at all costs". Your unproductive edit is still a mystery.

A "hidden comment" is one in the HTML of an article that does not display; for example: <!-- this is a hidden comment -->. You edited text within a hidden comment, which is not a productive thing to do. You obviously did not do it to improve the visible text, and I removed it per Nardog's suggestion since it was drawing such obviously unprodictive edits.

The only "question" you asked me was the obviously rhetorical "And why are you refusing to understand ..." sneer, that was obviously not inviting any sort of rational answer. Are you asking me to please rise to the bait now? You seem quite bent on provoking a response from me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: No, it is not a mistery. See, I know this tactic. You're pretending to be bewildered so that I keep explaining myself to you so that you can laugh at my naivety. Enough of these games, I'm aware that you know what I meant. I've explained that edit multiple times already.

That's what you meant. I know what it is, I thought you were calling my edit summary a hidden comment. My mistake.

It wasn't rhetorical, I did want an answer which you've never given. Now you can answer or not, it's a bit late for that, as you can see. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no rational response to your sneer. That you would expect a response gives us some insight into your mental processes. You can stop pinging me, by the way—you've amply demonstrated how desperate you are to provoke a response from me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

How come you could say to Nardog Are you even trying to understand why the IPA is being given in the context? and I couldn't respond to that with And why are you refusing to understand that you're doing things in the wrong order? Are you above me or something?

Only in your head. AKA more projection from CT. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey is certainly in need of an attitude check. That this was the editor's attempt to prompt discussion on WP:JAPAN: [8] is pretty alarming. As is Curly Turkey's unbacked assertions of disruption, trolling and tag-teaming. (Which has been doubled down upon here.) Incivility is rarely enforced, but this conduct crosses the line into personal attacks. The lack of any discussion on the article's talk page (are there good faith discussions being undertaken anywhere?) reflects poorly on all involved, but in Curly Turkey's case this is indeed coupled with incivility and personal attacks. Their long-term involvement with this article suggests to me that this may be a case of ownership. Cjhard (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, the accusation of tag-teaming was out of line and unfair: I retract it and apologize to Nardog. It was a poor response to the incivility Mr Kebab had subjected me to on Nardog's talk page and the ukiyo-e article, and I wrongly assumed that, as Mr KEBAB was a stalking Nardog's talk page and making edits on his behalf, that they were in cahoots. I can now see that was mistaken and that Mr Kebab's disruptions were entirely of his own volition.

  Re: OWNership: I've raised concrete accessibility issues with Nardog's edits that are under discussion elsewhere—maintaining the accessibility of an FA is hardly a trivial OWNership issue. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If the requirements of FA conflict with our guidelines regarding content/MOS etc, then its FA that loses out. We don't ignore guidelines and policies just so an article can keep its gold star. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end: that's not what I said, is it? Nor does it have anything to do with the edit Mr KEBAB made to the article, does it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Mr KEBAB made an edit to have the IPA conform to the relevant IPA guide. You reverted him. Really you need to gain consensus to alter the relevant guide so the article conforms or gain consensus to not display the IPA. What you shouldn't be doing is keeping in the article the IPA notation that is incorrect. RE "maintaining the accessibility of an FA is hardly a trivial OWNership issue." - IPA is not an accessibility issue. It is entirely a matter for linguists & translation, but not speaking Japanese or not knowing why the IPA is right/wrong are accessibility issues and have no bearing on it being an FA. IPA *is* a trivial issue. You could remove it from almost every article and it would have zero impact on the reader's understanding of the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where you got this version of the story, but it doesn't conform to any of the ones already presented. The IPA was already commented out of the article, and Mr KEBAB's edit was to a hidden comment, made tendentiously in mid-discussion. The edit I made was not a "revert" (where did you even get that?), it was an already-agreed-upon removal. But thanks for muddying the waters. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(A pronunciation guide is a matter only for linguists? I guess that's the long way of saying "I can't read IPA". Millions of non-linguists use IPA ... But this isn't the forum for such nonsense. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

My revert was performed 10 minutes after you started a discussion on Nardog's talk page and 40 minutes before Nardog agreed to the removal of the IPA. This is probably the third time I'm saying this. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(I know that I shouldn't post so much here, but I want to clarify this). I've never contacted Nardog outside WP, not even once. We're fellow editors that have talked a lot recently about English phonetics, that's all. All of our communication is public, and the fact I backed him up was because I agreed with him on the issue. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Correction: the fact that you editwarred on his behalf in mid-discussion. I doubt you want to draw more attention to that. The edit I made after yours (that you call "editwarring") was one that Nardog had agreed with before I made it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Are you capable of replying to me without lying? I hope that's not a rhetorical question. About the second part, yes, that was my mistake. Nardog agreed that removing the IPA might be a solution. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

So you admit now I wasn't editwarring, and your edit achieved nothing positive. Why not just bring an end to this drahmah now, then? Is there something you hope to achieve? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

My revert was performed about 40 minutes before Nardog agreed to removing the IPA, and at that time I wasn't aware of the discussion on his talk page (I wrote that post 10 minutes after you started that discussion). Before that, you reverted him twice. The first time it was a revert of an edit made in October, the second time a revert of Nardog's revert. So it started to look that an edit war is incoming (you don't have to break WP:3RR for that). The warning on your talk page wouldn't have been posted if I noticed that Nardog agreed to the removal of the IPA, so again, that was my mistake. Sorry for that.

I do not admit that my edit achieved nothing positive. It made the IPA match Help:IPA/Japanese, which is how it should've been from the very beginning. Again, you're aware of this and you're just baiting me into explaining myself over and over again. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You tendentiously edited a hidden comment that was under discussion. You really can't talk your way around that. Seriously, haven't you had your fill of drahmah for tonight? You still haven't told us what you hope this will accomplish. "Getting at that guy I don't like" is not what ANI is for. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not responding to this. Intelligent people will read my previous responses. Others won't, or pretend that they don't understand me when they actually do. I can see through your games, CT. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) (Disclosure: My past positive interactions with CT are a matter of public record. But I'm not here as his talk page stalker; I had my own little ANI thread on an unrelated problem earlier today and was reading over it when I noticed this.) I'm sorry, but per BRD Curly Turkey's version(s), the stable status quo until October, should be restored until talk page discussion takes place. This means that this edit summary by Mr KEBAB was way out of line and turned the standard procedure on its head. And yes, CT is right on the article content dispute: no one can argue that the version put in place by Nardog isn't more "correct" as Japanese phonetics goes (or, rather, as 2017 Tokyo phonetics goes, even though that is various levels of anachronistic when dealing with pre-modern and non-Kanto-centered topics), but that article is not about Japanese phonetics, and the pronunciation key's main purpose is to tell people that it's not pronounced the same way as Yukio Mishima's given name. (I studied Japanese in Dublin City University -- I know for a fact that this mistaken reading, which I'm pretty sure was the "official" pronunciation of the name of this Japanese fusion restaurant for a time, is ubiquitous.) Nardog/KEBAB's version does not make this clear to the reader, since only people with a specialist's knowledge of Japanese linguistics (or perhaps obscure IPA symbols) would be able to read that, and they wouldn't need the pronunciation key anyway. Sorry, but this looks like nothing more than a content dispute where the OP has been on the wrong side of the edit war and has the weaker argument in the content dispute. This thread should just be closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hijiri88: No, I don't have the weaker argument. Sorry, but you don't seem to understand how the IPA-ja template works. The symbols used there need to match Help:IPA/Japanese, otherwise we might as well just delete that guide. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: You're right -- I don't understand how the IPA-ja template works. I do, however, know how MOS:JAPAN (a much more authoritative guideline) works, as I helped draft it, and I can tell youmthat even MOS:JAPAN is filled with holes and is literally meant to be treated as a guideline in the Pirates of the Caribbean sense. I have also written the better part of 200 articles on Japanese topics for English Wikipedia over the last 12 years, and have been studying Japanese linguistics for most of that time, and I can tell you that even if Help:IPA/Japanese (a help page, which is not authoritative like a policy or guideline) perfectly described Modern Standard Japanese (and it apparently doesn't even do that), it would not be an appropriate guide for the majority of articles on pre-modern Japanese topics like ukiyo-e, where specifically MSJ pronunciation is an anachronism. If the purpose of the pronunciation key was to tell readers how the majority of Japanese in 2017 would be most likely to read the word if it was written phonetically and they had never heard their parents, grandparents or teachers use it and had no idea what it was, then maybe your version would be helpful, but some weird minutiae like that really do not belong in the lead paragraph, and it's debatable whether they would be helpful even in a footnote. The purpose of the pronunciation key is to tell English-speaking readers that it's ukiyo, not yukio; the more specific details are, at best, off-topic, and at worst anachronistic and wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Then look for sources that use the IPA symbols that you think are suitable and propose a change on Help talk:IPA/Japanese, which does follow reputable sources. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Because you demand it? Not how it works—no policy requires it. Context is everything: we write articles that best serve the general reader, not to satisfy specialized pedantry. "we might as well just delete that guide" is a non sequitur. You've shown no inclination to find a solution to any of the issues raised. Are you interested in anything but fighting? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:PRON. It's a part of the MoS rather than a policy, but it's close enough. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines, as a general rule, can be ignored if there is an obvious, good reason to do so in this or that article. And the guideline you link in particular is written in a descriptive, not prescriptive, fashion: a phonetic transcription is normally used, Other options are to link [Wiktionary] and so on. The page is 35 kB in length, so I'm doing all I can based on the blank link you provided to the page shortcut. But why is this conversation taking place here rather than at WT:JAPAN or at WT:MOS-JA? Heck, it was already being discussed at the former before you forum-shopped it here. And yes, it does look like you did it just to turn a woulda-otherwise-been-civil content dispute into a "fight" -- you haven't even elaborated what admin action you are seeking beyond a (short) ban (sic?). The diffs you provided show you unilaterally edit-warring at CT while he tried to find a solution, and very little else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I did it to bring attention to CT's behavior. I don't really care if you consider it an escalation, you can think what you want. It just shows that you don't have the full picture yet.

You seem to be confused about what edit-warring is. I reverted CT one time. If anything, CT's behavior looks more like edit warring. How many times do I need to say this? Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and we all know about CT's behaviour. The problem is that one-way CIVIL-blocks are (almost?) never issued when the CIVIL problems were provoked, as they were here. The others (like your edit-warring at CT while he tried to find a solution to the problem) are non-issues on CT's end.

And no: it's you who is confused about what edit-warring is. If one party is desperately trying to come up with a compromise and/or use the talk page and another is not, the arithmetic number of reverts is irrelevant. What you think "looks like" edit warring is irrelevant.

When you open a thread about someone on ANI, you need to have a specific proposal for admin intervention. "[B]ring[ing] attention to [someone]'s behavior" (just for the heck of it?) is not an acceptable use of this noticeboard.

Anyway, multiple editors, including myself, have called for this to be closed, so why hasn't it?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

CIVIL-blocks are (almost?) never issued when the CIVIL problems were provoked – I have no idea how things actually operate here, but if it's true, that is troublesome given WP:BATTLEGROUND. Nardog (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot the most important proviso. My comment was addressing the OP, who I assumed wasn't looking to get blocked himself. Of course the Community could collectively decide that CT and MRK both need to be blocked. But what I'm saying is that I just don't see that happening, nor either editor being suicidal enough to push for that themselves. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You're a classic example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I'm done explaining myself to you, you're fully aware what I did. And if you're not, what are you doing posting here? If you didn't bother to understand the situation, you're wasting everyone's time. You're continually refusing to get the full picture, and that's your problem. Please spare me the ridiculousness of saying that one edit can be considered edit warring. It's insane.

And should I get blocked along with CT and maybe Cassianto, I'll have no problem with that. But there needs to be justice - either all of us get blocked, or none of us does. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've read every comment you've repeatedly pinged me in (and then some), and none of it has answered the questions I asked you. Please spare me the ridiculousness of saying that one edit can be considered edit warring. You are showing a gross misunderstanding of EW policy. Editors who don't get the policy even after it is explained to them tend to get blocked, so I would be careful if I were you. Of course one revert can be edit-warring. One revert per week/month/year can be edit-warring; one revert overall can be edit-warring. If you are ignoring talk page discussion and/or attempts at compromise and blank-reverting anyway, that is edit-warring, regardless of the number. It's insane. When you go around casually saying things like that to other users, you are begging to get yourself an NPA-block.

And should I get blocked along with CT and maybe Cassianto, I'll have no problem with that. Huh. So you are saying you don't care about finding a solution to the content dispute and working to build an encyclopedia, and you don't even mind losing your editing privileges, so long as you can get at CT? But there needs to be justice - either all of us get blocked, or none of us does. Please read WP:NOJUSTICE. We are all here with our not-god-given editing privileges-not-rights for the specific purpose of building an encyclopedia, and when talking about "justice" does not advance that goal it is either ignored or cracked down on.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You really need to have the last word, don't you?

Editors who don't get the policy even after it is explained to them tend to get blocked, so I would be careful if I were you. This applies to actions, not thoughts. It's nobody's business if I don't understand the policy (whether I do or don't is a somewhat different matter).

If you are ignoring talk page discussion and/or attempts at compromise and blank-reverting anyway, that is edit-warring, regardless of the number. So much for reading my posts, then. I have no intention of proving to you that I didn't do that. Why? Because you don't care about the truth, you just want to slander me. It's obvious to me now.

When you go around casually saying things like that to other users, you are begging to get yourself an NPA-block. And you're begging to get banned for continuously lying about me. Better check your oversensitivity, bro.

So you are saying you don't care about finding a solution to the content dispute and working to build an encyclopedia I'm not interested in proving to you that I'm here to do that. You're not an admin, and they can check that themselves.

This is the last time I'm responding to you. You can go shake hands with CT now, you hardly differ from each other. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(written before the above comment by Mr KEBAB) @Mr KEBAB: I feel like it's about time for you to just drop it. Again, it pains me to see this, especially since I agree with you. Your latest remarks come off as self-destructive and retaliatory. I know you're better than this. Nardog (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: I'm dropping it right now. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to bring attention to the personal attack (which now is obvious to me) made above by Cassianto. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I recall Curly Turkey had this unpleasant outburst towards Cassianto once. So there is six of one, half a dozen of the other, so this thread is best just having a lid put on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Ritchie333: storm...meet teacup: get a room and let everyone else carry on doing useful things. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with both of the immediately above comments. Damn near anything is a better use of our limited volunteer time than this thread. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

What I don't understand about Curly Turkey's behavior is that, while he seems to be so keen on maintaining the article's quality, he's kind of sabotaging it by deviating from WP:PRON and Help:IPA/Japanese. So I wholeheartedly agree with Only in death on this part: If the requirements of FA conflict with our guidelines regarding content/MOS etc, then its FA that loses out. We don't ignore guidelines and policies just so an article can keep its gold star.

His accusing Mr KEBAB and me of "tag-teaming", which he, for the record, has since retracted, is even more perplexing. If anything, he's the one who's deviating from an already established guideline, so it is only natural for him to expect to meet dissenters.* Like several of us have already expressed, it is the IPA key, not the notation in some one article, that needs to be called into question first should one find it inadequate, as laid down at WP:PRON#Other languages.

As I see it, the problem is not that the current Help:IPA/Japanese key is too "hair-splitting"―it's already about as simple as the IPA key for any other foreign language. Rather, it is that, since the sound system of Japanese is fairly straightforward and its writing system is highly representative of the sound, IPA may not be so useful for Japanese words as it may be for other languages, as Hijiri88 points out. If we made our IPA for Japanese phonemic, as Curly Turkey has insinuated, it would convey even less information than the romanization. So there is certainly an argument to be made against the use of IPA for Japanese words. This I'll leave to WT:JAPAN.

Just to give my perspective, I support this edit by Mr KEBAB (not sure about the summary though). You don't comment out a part of encyclopedic content just so it'll be removed. You comment it out because you think there's a chance of it being restored. And a notation enclosed in an IPA-xx template must always agree with the key it links to, per WP:PRON, so the edit was perfectly reasonable. I don't object to Curly Turkey's ultimate removal of the notation either, though, as I expressed on my talk.

Frankly, the lack of assumption of good faith on both parts―I wouldn't say equally, but surely on both parts―is alarming. I mean, how hard is it to stay civil and assume good faith and try to get something out of a conversation? I think people have said enough about Curly Turkey, but―and I've seen him do this before―Mr KEBAB also could certainly use some advice from WP:KETTLE. Being impolite back to those who are impolite to you only hurts your argument, no matter who's at fault. You don't have to accuse someone of lying, trolling or being a hypocrite when you are attacked, even if they are guilty of such things. You only need to lay down what's happened and point out inaccuracies or deficiencies on their part, and let others figure out who needs to be held accountable.

* Also, Mr KEBAB and I have disagreed on many things and had rather civil discussions about them. And hey, even Curly Turkey and I have a history of agreeing on something! So you two are clearly capable of participating in conversations in a civil and respectful manner, not to mention of contributing encyclopedic content with an abundance of knowledge and expertise. It pains me to see intelligent people bogged down in juvenile strife. It's not worth it.

Nardog (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I disagree with CT on just about everything when it comes to content minutiae (assuming a basic understanding of policy; obviously there are editors who completely misunderstand policy active in some topic areas, and in both of our disputes with such users we have both always agrees), but most of our discussions have been civil. Granted, I've been on ArbCom-enforced-but-self-requested-in-origin 1RR for most of my history of interacting with him so I have never actually edit-warred with him. And, frankly, I think the project would be a better place if everyone was subject to 1RR. But that's not really relevant here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Nardog—I do need to point out that I had announced that I was disengaging from Mr KEBAB to keep the discussion on point long before any of this drahmah erupted. This all could have ended then and we all could have had a productive discussion. I notice nobody's taking part in the discussion—you yourself haven't responded to the points I brought up on your talk page or Help:IPA/Japanese, where I've already responded to the things you say you're so perplexed about wrt my "behaviour". This is not the forum to discuss those things—those places are. You can see I'm not alone in the position I hold, so obviously earnest discussion (not drahmah) is needed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(OP here) - close the discussion if you want. Drahmah or not, we're all sick of it. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add if I'm allowed that while it might not be connected to this specific discussion, I and (I'm pretty sure) quite a few other editors from the comic project can vouch for the fact that Curly Turkey has had a history of being rather unwilling to show good faith.★Trekker (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • • Oh, hi, ★Trekker! I seem to recall the "unwilling[ness] to show good faith" was in a particular topic in which a particular editor got themself TBANned—because the community determined said editor was working disruptively in bad faith. But I'll show good faith here—I'll assume you're not here to air a personal grudge. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

And I and (I'm pretty sure) quite few other editors from outside the comic project can vouch for the fact that that is more a problem with WP:COMICS than Curly Turkey. It can probably be assumed that the above is a reference to the Joker (character) mess from about a year ago, in which pretty much everyone outside the comics WikiProject agreed with CT's point of view, and one or two tendentious editors from the comics project started going after CT (and myself, and a coupla others) personally as a result: it didn't work out for them then, so I'm baffled as to why a different comics editor would think it's a good idea to rehash the dispute now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not you personally think their idea for how to disambiguate is good or not it doesn't change the fact that they were excessively rude towards pretty much every single person from the project. Not to mention that their changes that actually made sense were accepted and I've even personally tried to enforce them on several articles. It's hard for a project to be accepting towards someone's ideas who has such an unbelievably shitty attitude. There is nothing more wrong with the comics project more than any other project and that mess of an AFD was complerly selfinflected by creating a very pointless mess of an article in the first place and then getting overly angry when people pointed out it was pointless and then spinning it into a way bigger discussion about a completely different subject. The question of "should his article right here exist?" is a different one than "how should we disambiguate and structure/format articles in general?". You're clearly letting your personal experiences in the situation cloud your judgement if you think you can honestly say that they acted ok towards other editors in that situation or any other in consering comics and that the only problem was that the comics project is supposedly possessive. The project has tons of editors who are perfectly reasonable and haven't done anything towards you or them so don't try to pull a card like that. That issue is with the people that harassed you, not everyone else. Before you say "oh well other people on the project have been rude towards Turkey too", yes, maybe that has happened, but that doesn't change their behavior at all, the simple fact that this thread right here exists is pretty much proof that this is a reocuring problem for them, whether or not other people have it too (like me, or another person form the comics project) doesn't help their case. They just repeatedly act like a confrontaive person.★Trekker (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing more wrong with the comics project more than any other project Meh. I read that as WP:IDHT. You're clearly letting your personal experiences in the situation cloud your judgement Not really. I commented extensively in the multiple ANI threads that spun out of the issue and remember them well, while you don't seem to have even read them as you seem to think it ended with CT on the "losing" side. If you think DK's TBAN was a miscarriage of justice you can take it up on Drmies's talk page as others already tried to do a bunch of times. "oh well other people on the project have been rude towards Turkey too", yes, maybe that has happened, but that doesn't change their behavior at all It's not rudeness; it's frustrating ignorance of policies and guidelines, and obsessive maintenance of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in the face of near-constant opposition from virtually everyone outside. Yes, CT has a sharp tongue, but it takes a lot to frustrate him into using it in the manner that you refer to. the simple fact that this thread right here exists is pretty much proof that this is a reocuring problem for them No, the OP effectively withdrew this thread several days before you came along, and the fact that you could write that shows pretty clearly that you at best skimmed this discussion before commenting on it. They just repeatedly act like a confrontaive person. You're lecturing someone who has almost never agreed with him on content and has interacted with him a bunch more times across multiple topic areas than you or anyone else in this thread has, and yet has never found him to be less than personable because it takes severe disruption on the part of the users he's disagreeing with to cause him to act in this "confrontaive" manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Editor adding Category:New Left to multiple articles, not all of which seem appropriate

PumpkinButter (talk · contribs) is a relatively new user busy adding the New Left category to articles. New Left, the parent article for the category, says "The New Left was a broad political movement mainly in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of activists, educators, and others..." One of the latest additions was Wilhelm Reich who was dead by then. I haven't checked them all, but the ones I have checked don't mention New Left. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If you feel it is inappropriate, please remove... I added him since "Reichian analysis" was briefly **all the rage** within the New Left and it just seemed connected? (He was obviously somebody that leftists felt deeply connected to--I just added Ellen Willis to the category of New Left, and she was a huge fan of Reich, wrote articles, etc). I am trying to flesh out a category (New Left) that someone could look at and do a whole college paper without having to jump all over the place!  :) Trying to cover *a whole lifestyle* which is what the New Left tried to be for its adherents (which is why I added "identity politics"--once the exclusive property of the New Left and now it belongs to everybody). This concept was covered (badly) in the book "Greening of America" by another guy named Reich!

Good question though--how can we add something that sorta goes with the topic but not overtly? Like the only rock band that came out and called itself communists was the MC5, but its seems the Grateful Dead and other bands that advocated lifestyle-changes could logically be called New Left. Fact is, I happen to know John Perry Barlow would have a shit fit if I added NEW LEFT to anything Dead-related so I don't. :D PB57 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I posted a question on PumpkinButter's Talk page at about the same time that Doug Weller filed this report. I too was concerned with the very many category additions being made, but my concern was more with adding a "political" category that wasn't directly connected to the subject by the article text. As of right now, PumpkinButter appears to have stopped adding the categories and is engaging in discussion with Doug Weller and myself on their Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I had already removed this cat from a number of pages as inappropriate, addressed the user on their talk page, and made some initial edits to the New Left article before seeing this. If the article and category are to remain, major cleanup is needed, by editors more experienced than the user who started it. My time and energy for dealing with it is unfortunately limited today. After seeing the responses by PumpkinButter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on their talk page, I'm not sure the user really understands what the problem is. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ron Kuby and Joan Baez are more New Left than New Left (more human than human) and should stay in the category. If anyone belongs in it, they do. But they were removed; obviously, I do not share the sensibility of the person deleting, so there is little I can do about that. I will register my objections, because I think they are valid... but again, not much else I can do but simply be amazed anyone thinks Ron Kuby and Joan Baez are anything BUT New Left. And I think its fair to say if the category is deliberately omitting activists of this caliber and importance? ... well, lets just say the category needs some work.PB57 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC) I spoke too soon, about Ron Kuby. Now Ron's mentor, the main lawyer for the New Left in America, William Kunstler, has been removed from the New Left category, even though a list of his famous radical clients is right there in his bio. Could I just ask what the reason for that is? Because no, I don't understand. Why these blanket deletions of such people who were integral to the New Left--isn't that what the category is about? PB57 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@PumpkinButter: I see that this discussion has become split between here and your Talk page. Because this is probably the better place to have the discussion, I'll repeat here what I've already said there -- Removing the articles from the category is not being done because anyone has passed judgment on the appropriateness of the category. But by the same token, you should not be making these judgement calls, either. The point that you seem to be missing is this -- Wikipedia is not intended to be a compendium of all human knowledge; it is intended to be a compendium of that portion of human knowledge that has been published in reliable sources. If you can find an authoritative published source that explicitly makes the connection between the subject and the New Left movement, great! Add a statement to the article, reference it to that authoritative published source and then add the category back to the list. But that process needs to start with finding an authoritative source that backs up your opinion/analysis. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

PB please read WP:CATDEF. There needs to be sourced info in an article about a category before it can be added to it. MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The editor appears to want to categorize anyone who was left of center in those decades as "New Left". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"The editor appears to want to categorize anyone who was left of center in those decades as "New Left"." The Communist Workers Party would seem to qualify as waaaay left, but it was deleted also. If a 'communist party' itself doesn't qualify as "Left", I am honestly at a loss. I see no rhyme or reason to the deletions, but its been well over a hundred deletions so far, including the major leftist parties founded in the 60s-70s (meaning NEW Left, not old). A bit excessive? PB57 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"If you can find an authoritative published source that explicitly makes the connection between the subject and the New Left movement, great!"-- there are several citations re: Joan Baez's extensive activism and interviews about her involvement in the Left over decades cited right there on her page--why do I have to go find new citations again before posting in a category, when the "proof" is already right there in the person's bio? PB57 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This is getting into content territory, but the New Left was a reaction against the Old Left, i.e. the various Marxist and Commnist parties and the socialists which young radicals felt had become too close to the Establishment. For that reason those older leftist people and parties are not part of the New Left, and should not be in that category. In a nut shell: not everything that is part of the left is part of the New Left.

To other editors: I removed some stuff that was obviously wrong, but my knowledge about the New Left movement is not particularly deep, so someone who knows the subject better should go through Category:New Left, I'm pretty sure there's more that can come out. The ones that I removed can be seen in my contribution list, so if anyone (other than PB57) thinks I removed something I shouldn't have, feel free to re-add. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

From what I understand of you PB57 you're trying to apply your own category which you've come to via "logic" and "likeness" - when here on Wikipedia that is in fact called Original Research WP:OR, and is frowned upon. This is one of the many Wikipedia Policies you'll have to learn to successfully edit Wikipedia (also see The Five Pillars). None the less to say that you can't just go around editing with your own personal opinions as your sole compass, without expecting there to be discussions and debates to come of it. It's best if facts being included on Wikipedia explicitly appear in the sources (this includes category changes). Good luck with your future time here, you'll definitely improve this place if you follow the policies. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The New Left Review and Third Way politics are crucial to bookending the New Left (with the space inbetween being the space in which this shift or 'movement' occurred, the start being entirely progressive, the end being third way politics), and that "The New Left" is more about the creation of Third Way Neoliberalism - which is essentially progressive social policies combined with free market and corporatist economic concerns. For this reason I don't believe that anyone who is simply progressive in their politics, or merely an advocate of corporatism/capitalism as an answer, can then simply be included into this category (as they require both these aspects). On top of this, they should be directly involved in the movement. The new left should not be confused for all of post-war leftism, as it was a particular milieu who were directly involved in the creation of this movement (as opposed to predecessors, cultural theorists, or post-war leftists in general). This distinction must be made in order to avoid WP:COATRACK. --Jobrot (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Move to close: This seems to be resolving itself nicely through a content and policy discussion. Perhaps we should close this ANI thread—unless somebody thinks there is additional need for administrator intervention? Malinaccier (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warrior 2?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Personal attacks in every edit summary"? Really? I notice my edits were rv'd, yet this, the very same change, was left alone... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that you weren't edit-warring, and that both of you didn't get a thoroughly deserved and surprisingly short block? (7RR?) Incidentally, if the implication of this horrible sentence is that coachwright dates from 1587 and coachmaker from 1599, then I would agree with your punctuation change - although I prefer the original wording and keeping both as the simpler "(from 15xx)".

Then you give us this: "right, & Eddadio gets a thank you, I suppose" on removing a block notification. Another whining complaint of poor ill-done-by Trekphiler, being picked on unfairly by these nasty admins and being the only one to suffer. Yet, quite rightly (and almost leniently) you'd both been blocked: at the same time and for the same duration.

This is not unusual. It's getting to be almost a habit: petulant complaining of "unfair treatment" when in fact you're getting anything but. Do you think this impresses anyone? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Please drop the stick; both of you were equally blocked for edit warring. It's not the job of admins or AN/I to resolve your content dispute. ansh666 00:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring has nothing to do with it. I'm obviously not entitled to the same standard of civility, not from "uninterested party" Andy, nor from anybody else, as I'm expected to show. Yes, this was just another case of me wanting to "resolve a content dispute". I could care less about the content dispute; I'd have been perfectly happy to resolve both disputes over content with Eddadio, if he'd bothered to be civil about it. But, of course, I'm not entitled to that, am I? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kleuske's haste Re:Environmental racism in Europe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Kleuske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Environmental racism in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. The article Environmental racism in Europe was started and tended to by User:Sturgeontransformer some time ago. It's a rather lengthy article with all kinds of copyediting issues, but Sturgeontransformer has made it clear that they're open to discussion and improvement, and value constructive argumentation.
2. Several days ago User:Kleuske "arrived" at the article and started making sweeping, heavy-handed changes, and within four days cut the article's length by 20%.
3. Sturgeontransformer asked for a third opinion. I gave my opinion and tried to facilitate a discussion between the two at the article's talk page. I have not been involved with the article before.
4. Unfortunately, two things have happened that prohibit that discussion: First, Kleuske's radical revision of the article made discussing it in full very difficult; second, they exhibited such a short-tempered, single-minded approach that both Sturgeontransformer and myself became convinced that discussion could not, and will not yield consensus. Sturgeontransformer has since taken an extended leave from Wikipedia.
5. I take no pleasure at lodging a complaint against most anyone, but I must ask for this reprieve: First, kindly ask Kleuske to leave the article as is for 72 hours, so that I may restore it to its "stable" revision (with minimal stylistic changes). Second, that they are asked to regain control over their temper; I do not believe any of this was the result of ill intention and I do not seek personal sanctions, but whatever itch this subject scratched must be overcome if we are to continue the discussion with less angst, and more patience and civility. François Robere (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

But then WP:DRN says "Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only" - and I'm asking about conduct, not content. So what is it? François Robere (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You gave no diffs that anyone did anything wrong, just that there is a disagreement on the content in the article. ~ GB fan 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: That's because what you'd really be after is the history of the page (as you can see, it's a small massacre). But here's a diff for your perusal. François Robere (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

So you are talking about a content dispute. An editor wants to remove content they don't believe belongs and you want to have the content there until it is discussed. Typical content dispute. ~ GB fan 18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• I strongly suspect this article would not survive an AfD. It's effectively an essay listing a number of ways in which various ethnic minorities are disadvantaged in Europe. Linking things like "a greater percentage of minority X live close to motorways than white people" are simply original research when you're linking them to an article with "racism" in the title. There are absolutely no dissenting voices in the article whatsoever. There probably is an article to be written here, but this is not it. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe so, and It definitely needs a lot more work (as I said - I wasn't involved and have no interest in it outside the editor's), but for that there needs to be a discussion, and I'm not convinced there's one to be had ATM. François Robere (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to GB fan, i'd like my two bits in here, if I may. I have the singleminded approach of trying to rid the article of bogus claims and ditto sources. The article is mainly the work of User:Sturgeontransformer and is a huge coatrack of various disputes, protests, problems in refugee camps, and other claims some of which were flat-out contradicted by the sources themselves under a title that is a prime example of loaded language. I have been carefull to discuss any and all changes on the talkpage. François Robere invited himself into the debate, which is fine, and his contributions quickly whent from 'contradiction' to 'responding to tone' in Grahams famous hierarchy, culminating in a fucking ANI report. I've had it. I formally request a WP:BOOMERANG, or at least a community sanctioned {{whale}}. Kleuske (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Note: After being directed to dispute resolution (which eventually landed at WP:DRN), which has essentially been a waste of time for François Robere due to that not being the place to handle conduct issues, I'm reopening this thread. He has made it clear that he is trying to the discuss the behavior of this user, so the premature closing by GB fan leaves me puzzled. I have no intentions of discussing the conduct at issue here but ask that others attempt to discuss the matter further here before quickly shutting threads down. Thanks. Nihlus 03:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit-warring, and disruptive editing by anonymous editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently came across this editor, who is engaged as what can only be described as WP:OWN/WP:IDHT behavior. Targeted pages include Potential game, Quantal response equilibrium, Econophysics, and Phase transition. Could an administrator please address this mess of a situation, and help resolve the issue? Thank you. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 19:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors to the conversation. WeakTrain Attic Salt Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 19:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Boomer Vial, I was just about to report this myself. The user (who is editing under multiple IPs) is claiming personal conversations with noted economists as authority. The papers he's inserting seem to be his own, and have zero citations on Google Scholar that are not self-citations, as far as I can tell. WeakTrain (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Also had some behavior at Bounded rationality. WeakTrain (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

IP seems to have only one purpose, to promote his barely cited papers. Attic Salt (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Here are examples of going in circles with the IP: [9], [10]. Attic Salt Attic Salt (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Range blocked. I've blocked the 2602:301:772a:e580::/64 range for two weeks for disruptive editing and edit warring over multiple articles. That covers all the IPv6 ("long") IPs I see from the links above, in fact it can be assumed to be all the same person. Feel free to let me know if they come back from a different IP, or continue the disruption after the block expires. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, one note: Another anonymous IP not in the range, but located near Irvine (where this person Michael Campbell is based) above has been making edits on the same topics. These edits don't involve inserting his own citations into the text, but add the same questionably-notable topics, and essentially engage in WP:OR of the kind that is done in the papers he was inserting before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeakTrain (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Image issue

Vandalism reverted, cache purged, and template protected. Nothing more to do, thanks for the report. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 02:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

---

As noted here, a large middle finger will appear on the San Diego County, California article when people are logged out of their accounts, yet for some reason doesn't display when they're logged in. Can anyone please help fix this? Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism in Template:Photomontage - it's been reverted/protected, and the page is fixed after a cache purge. ansh666 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Ansh666! Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't do the hard work (軽快 found it and reverted, and Zzuuzz protected), I just reported the outcome. But you're welcome anyways :) ansh666 02:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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

User:Klaun

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Klaun is continuously removing the references. In diff [11], his edit summary stated that he is removing unsourced and repeated facts. But instead he removed 5 important references and the fact and information/reference about collector notice in Madhya Pradesh to celebrate the event was removed completely. This information was well-referenced, still he removed it. Some of the important references removed were: [12][13] Earlier also I have observed the similiar issue of removal of references by Klaun - [14]. The reason which he stated about removal of reference doesn't seem appropriate. Amicable always (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion by disruptive anonymous IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Above, a number of editors complained about an anonymous IP adding in citations to his own work and refusing to attempt to gain consensus on a number of pages. He is evading his block under another IP. WeakTrain (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Oshwah. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Herostratus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please ask Herostratus (talk · contribs) to move on? See User_talk:The_Quixotic_Potato#Whats_with_the_parens? & Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names. Dead horses are boring. Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Meh. This has been going on for, what, two days? Ignore it. Archive the thread on your user page and just move on. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have. Every time we interact Herostratus gets more pissed off and I get more bored. Thread deleted. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the user is missing the point. Putting parens around someone else's name is a neo-Nazi kind of thing. Putting them around your own ID is a pie in the face to neo-Nazis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, I get that now, but I still question whether the purpose of sigs is to put pies into peoples faces, is all. It's distracting from what we're trying to do here. It's OK for twitter or whatever. Also since I missed the point maybe others will too, and it's just not helpful. At any rate I think that's a legitimate question, at least. The complaint is that even raising the point is harassment, and I don't agree, but if the admin corps does agree than I'll strike the thread at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names I guess. Herostratus (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Please just move on, forget this ever happened, and ignore me for a while. We are on the same team. Friendly fire (worst euphemism ever) is always bad. I am Dutch btw, see Dutch famine of 1944–45. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, an editor closed the thread at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names on ground that sigs are not usernames so wrong venue (pretty closely related you'd think, but whatever) and I was told to take it here. It's not really an incident and there's no hurry, so I'll move it to WP:AN instead. Herostratus (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. If you do, you are going to get even more pissed off, and I am going to get even more bored. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wait.. Dutch?! You told me you were a Shetland Black! nagualdesign 12:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis who come here tend not to be good-faith editors. And I think TQP has used his signature for a goodly amount of time now, without (as far as I know) any complaints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. Well, on the merits of the case, I opened a separate thread for that (this thread is harassment complaint I guess) at the Usernames noticeboard. I have to take it here though. I don't see why the the Username people can't handle sigs also and I think it's best discussed over a length of time (hence RfC) by people specifically interested in usernames, and I don't think ANI us really a good venue. But it's not up to me so I'll post the question on the merits below. Herostratus (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's best discussed over a length of time . Or maybe just drop it altogether? nagualdesign 12:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I've heard rumors that there is some kind of encyclopedia that needs improving. Not sure if that is true. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Nazipedia could probably use some help. Can you tell us when you started using that signature, and whether any other legitimate users have complained? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Long time ago. A Wiktionary admin posted a message on my talkpage because he has a similar signature. See also this. User_talk:The_Quixotic_Potato#(((_))) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What I think we'd all like to know is how long you've been pretending not to be a Bintje? Being white is nothing to be ashamed of, you know. Colouring yourself purple is no life for a potato. nagualdesign 12:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

All the cool potatoes are purple actually. It's the color of royalty. My country is mostly water, so plants love it here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) When will we ever learn to judge a potato by its flavour and texture, and not by the colour of its skin? What a world! nagualdesign 13:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User sig issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I had posted this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names but was told to move it here (I don't think that's a good idea, but I don't really have choice in the matter). So here's the original thread from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (I struck through the parts that are just about moving the thread).

---

Regarding The Quixotic Potato (talk · contribs)'s sig: the editors sig is (((The Quixotic Potato))), with the username enclosed in three parentheses. In summary, it has to do with anti-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism and the alt-Right and resistance to the alt-Right, and I think it is probably disruptive, and definitely not helpful to what we're trying to do here, so probably falls under WP:DISRUPTNAME.

In detail: the primary use of the triple parentheses is as an anti-semitic symbol; the parens around a Jewish name, like this: (((Jacob Rothschild))) show how the perfidious actions of the Jews "echo throughout history" or something. It's an extremely inflammatory symbol.

OK, but there's another, secondary use of the symbol, to mean the opposite when it's put around your own name (I had not known this). Thus, while (((Jacob Rothschild))) is anti-Semitic, (((My Ownname))) means that you are opposed to anti-Semitism; you're showing solidarity with the Jewish people, I gather.

A sig's not a userpage, it's all up everybody's face whenever you sign something. So I mean the first question is, is it appropriate to have "SocialDemocrat" or "TrumpSupporter" or whatever as your username? It's probably a bad idea; whether it's bad enough to disallow it is one of the questions here.

Second question is, but is opposition to Anti-Semitism sufficiently non-controversial to not really be political, but more like "EverybodyShouldFloss" or whatever. If it is, then "OpposedToAntiSemitism" might be an OK name, and if "OpposedToAntiSemitism" is OK then (((Username))) might be too.

Might be, but maybe not, for a few reasons. One is that one could easily misunderstand the intent. I did. I'm familiar with the main use of the symbol (anti-Semitic) but wasn't with the more obscure meaning (anti-anti-Semitic). Others may make the same mistake and I'm not seeing how any of this is helpful.

Another reason is that the triple parens is inherently inflammatory. It's kind of like the difference between "OpposedToNazis" and "OpposedTo". The first might be OK (I guess, although not in my book), the second maybe not.

A third reason is the potential for trolling. Even if this user is sincere (can't tell) I'm not sure this is a path we want to be going down.

WP:DISRUPTNAME says to avoid "Usernames that are... referencing controversies" and "Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction". I mean I certainly had an emotional reaction; whether it was "intended to provoke" and how much intention matters... intention is hard to know.

I mean, we're not really here to Right Great Wrongs or Show Solidarity with anyone, so I'm not seeing how this is helpful. I guess one question I would like to see answered is "Using the triple parens in one's sig provides a net increase in our ability to move forward toward the Wikipedia's goals, because _______". I'm not sure what goes in the blank. So after considering all this, I don't think that using the triple parens anywhere is a good idea, and I think it's distracting enough to fall under WP:DISRUPTNAME, or might be. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• TQP should just get rid of the damned parens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC) [NB, strikethrough in the original thread Herostratus (talk)]

• Ignore trolling. Improve encyclopedia. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• What the fuck do I know? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• WP:DENY. Herostratus is pissed off about a recent conversation we've had, and is trying to cause WikiDrama. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have to admit I was severely tempted to just speedy close this as inappropriate. This is not a forum for discussing signature issues. I would add that the concerns raised were in fact addresssed by the user in question, and the reporting user replied with “fuck you too I guess” which makes it seem that maybe everyone needs to just calm down here. If I thought this signature was actually promoting discrimination of any kind I’d say disallow, but given that it has been made clear that it is the opposite, I say Allow and maybe these two should just avoid each other in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Allow -- not offensive or otherwise inappropriate. In any case, the noticeboard is about usernames, not about signatures, so the report seems misplaced to begin with. Speedy close would be okay with me.K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Allow - I have absolutely no idea if TQPs sig is related to anti-semitism but clearly this isn't the place to discuss sigs, The whole point of this board is to discuss USERNAMES, This sort of issue is for AN/I, Beeblebrox could you come back and do the honours please ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Allow. The username is inoffensive and the signature does not indicate any disruptive intent. Please find actual problems to fix instead of fixating on this. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the misconception is that you think that the reason I ask you to stop is that you are annoying me. You are not. Much of my entertainment is people doing stupid shit. The reason I asked you to stop is because you are making yourself look bad, and wasting everyone's time. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jack Sebastian's edit-warring, personal attacks and hounding/stalking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user linked above is being reported for severe cases of edit-warring, personal attacks and now hounding/stalking. The order of events is as follows.

The editor made an edit summarized as "clean up" on The Gifted (TV series) here. Adamstom.97 reverted this edit, Jack reverted again with no explanation, Adam restored the status quo. Then, this is when Jack reverts yet again, stating that Adam's edits were WP:BOLD (not the case, as Jack made the initial edit) and that Adam had reached their 3 reverts. To restore the WP:STATUSQUO and enact WP:BRD, I restored to the version before edit-warring.

During this, to prevent Adam from editing the page, Jack requested page protection; this eventually ended up being dealt with through two warnings. Examples of their personal attacks can be seen through their posts at Talk:The Gifted (TV series), threads here, accusations here (I am fairly certain that another editor (who insists on an incorrect usage of verb tenses) won't initiate discussion here.). Personal attacks here on my personal talk page after I reverted him; previous attacks here and here and threads to stalk and hound here.

Jack has previous edit-warred at The Gifted (TV series); see edits at [15][16][17] (after which, page was protected after Jack requested protection with a specifically "stable" version that he preferred]), and [18][19], and [20][21][22].

Now, going back, once I had reverted to restore the status quo and enact BRD (see last link of second paragraph), Jack decided it would be in their best interest to start WP:HOUNDing me. The examples are as follows:

1. On Arrow (TV series), an editor had added content that I later removed; Jack came to the page and reverted me.
2. On Jodie Whittaker, an editor had removed a photo twice [23][24] based on their personal views; I restored it both times [25][26] while another editor agreed with me. Jack came to the page and reverted me.
3. On Riverdale (2017 TV series), an editor made an edit in contrast to the hidden note there, and I reverted, pointing them to the note with my edit summary. Jack came to the page and reverted me.

The latter cases are solid evidence of WP:HOUND, as per the Editor Interaction Analyser for Jodie Whittaker and Riverdale (2017 TV series), Jack had never edited either article before his reverts today.

This editor needs administration to look into their severe actions immediately, and the editor either needs to learn how to edit collaboratively without starting edit-wars and resorting to threats, personal attacks and stalking/harassment, or some form of formal action needs to be filed against them. -- Alex^TW 13:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pending-changes/Rollback revoked from account. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You not only removed reviewer and rollbacker but made him unconfirmed as well. What is the justification for this? Reviewing and rollback had nothing to do with Jack Sebastion's alleged misdeeds, and I thought user rights were only revoked when an editor misused them or they are directly related to his misconduct. Cf. this 2012 discussion; WP:Template editor § Criteria for revocation (requiring misuse of the right, abuse of the right, vandalism, inactivity, or lax account security). Rebbing 16:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the EC error. Intended to only remove PC and R. Beyond that, I recommend reading each policy's revocation rules. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Forgive me, as I am on my first cuppa of the day, so I'll try address each one of the concerns that Alex has "thoughfully" brought up. Since ANI isn't for discussions about content, I won't addreess that, except to say that the only time I ever revert someone is if they are dead effing wrong about their edit reasoning, and have failed (usually repeatedly) to address the problem in article discussion to the point of consensus. The reporting editor, Alex, has an extraordinarily long, seven year history of stalking my (and others') edits and trolling, so it would be fair to say that he and I have an abrasive interaction history. I think its also fair to say that, after several AN'I complaints that I have had to file against Alex, that perhaps he is weaponizing the noticeboard process at this point.

Additionally, I am fairly certain that Coffee might have missed that lengthy interaction history - a fairly important bit of the puzzle - before he swwoped in and gutted my editing rights. And to be specific, I have never used Rollbacker in reverting back someone's edits. EVER. Not even in an instance of clear vandalism. Removing them is petty, and I would like them back, because he was mistaken in removing them. A better way of addressing the situation would be a simple post to my use talk page asking 'wut up, son?' I therefore posit that Coffee might have acted hastily, and urge him to undo his action in favor of more constructive solutions.

As mentioned before, Alex has a lengthy history of trolling my (and others') edits (and I have called him on wikistalking and wikihounding for years) Most recently, he's inserted himself into an article soley to revet my edits at least twice, all the time failing to bother contributing to discussion, His edit summaries are amongst the flimsiest we get in Wikipedia: fun fact, he doesn't even follow his own edit summary advice himself.

And it was that last realization which made rethink my approach to Alex' edits; I decided that, if this fellow was going to stalk my edits over several years (as per the Editor Interaction Tool), I should probably try to figure out where his editing philosophy was going so terribly wrong. So, in looking back over his recent controbutions, I found at least four problematic edits and reverts, and reversed and/or fixed them in accordance with our actual guidelines. To be fair, many of Alex' edits were just fine, and no action was necessary. But let's be clear AFB, I looked at a single days' worth of edits, whereas Alex has been reverting my edits (without discussion) for years.

I will readily admit that I use cuss words, though not to the point of using them on people (ie, I will note that a situation is 'fucked up', not that a fellwo editor is a 'fuck-up'). Additionally, I do not suffer fools gladly. If someone makes a boneheaded mistake, I will usually just point it out and correct it. If the contributor continies to insist that their mistake is actually correct, or attack me instead of the issue, then the gloves come off. I know that my lack of tolerance for editorial arrogance (the lack of discussion or making the edits about the editor both being chief symptoms of such) doesn't earn me beer buddies. I don't really care; I'm here to make the articles better. And I do.

Lastly, I will point out that when I pointed out Alex' various editorial failings, he's acted like he was almost waiting for me to pop off at him, so he could run here about the big bad stalky man following his edits. He's made a fair show of it here, but it doesn't play as well on his own talk page edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.). Btw, those links indicate a very small sampling where I've asked Alex to stop trolling and hounding my edits. His response? Simple blanking of the talk page request. And so it has been going on with Alex for almost 7 years. And others have accused him of stalking their edits as well, as evidenced by his rather lengthy block log and noticeboard complaints.

Lastly, I will point out that I always engage in discussion with my edits, and often initiate them. Alex rarely engages in discussion, and - to my knowledge - has never initiated discussion.

It is my fondest wish that Alex would stop hounding my edits and trolling the articles that I begin editing in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I so "thoughfully" brought them up, because I am sick of your actions and accusations.

the only time I ever revert someone is if they are dead effing wrong about their edit reasoning This is your personal opinion. It does still constitute edit-warring, as you'd know considering your history with warring and blocks ((as evidenced by his rather lengthy block log: Pot, kettle, black. Yours is more detailed than mine.). However the editor here still refuses to accept any wrong-doing, as they stated here: "I know what Edit-warring is, and I am not engaging in it."

I am going to start this off by stating that I have never stalked you. Not once have I gone to your contributions to find pages you are editing on, to find edits of your to revert. Not once. Every revert of mine has been through a page that was already on my watchlist, or eventually added to it (e.g. a series I've started watching, who's page I started following). You have nothing to back this false claim up, and I'm done with your pathetic attempts to get me to bend over and accept your will. I, however, now have irrefutable evidence that you are the one who is hounding and deliberately inserting yourself into other pages simply to be disruptive.

Most recently, he's inserted himself into an article solelly to revert my edits at least twice Proof, if you will? If not, then this is simply another baseless accusation, yet another to add to the years of harassment and personal attacks that you've dealt me over the past years.

I will readily admit that I use cuss words, though not to the point of using them on people Was there not a point where you called an editor racist, because they disagreed with your viewpoint on the entry for an Asian character? I recommend that you revise that sentence pretty soon. If the contributor continies to insist that their mistake is actually correct, or attack me instead of the issue, then the gloves come off. / I don't really care; I'm here to make the articles better. A solid admission on knowing that they are violating the WP:CIVIL policy. You may not be here to make friends, but that does not mean that you cannot post in a civil and neutral manner, so that the dispute can be solved in an easy manner.

His response? Simple blanking of the talk page request. Because it is nothing but an angry man wanting to take out his angry on another editor. I've requeted that you cease posting on my talk page, which I am well within my rights to do, but do you follow that either? No. I've removed your edits on my talk page, and you reinstate them. Are you within your rights to do that on my talk page? No. All of these accusations (and a lot of repeating yourself here), and still, no proof and nothing to base any form of your argument on. Admit it: simply because you don't like me, you feel the need to drag my name through the mud with nothing to back it up.

Alex rarely engages in discussion, and - to my knowledge - has never initiated discussion. How would you know? Unless you've been stalking my edits for the past three and a half years, watching what I do and if I start a discussion. And the answer is yes, I do. Would you like links? I'd be happy to provide dozens of examples of where I have started a discussion. And so it has been going on with Alex for almost 7 years. Another baseless accusation. How can I tell? Because I've only been editing here for three and a half. Is this someone trying to buff up their response and act the innocent? No. It is something who blatantly lies, cheats and harasses to get their own way. -- Alex^TW 22:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh Alex, when will you just stop?

"This is your personal opinion." Actually, it isn't "my opinion" when people argue that a policy or guideline means one thing when it clearly is widely known to be something else completely. You constantly bend sources to reflect your opinion, and have the second largest trouble with interpreting sources than just about anyone I've ever edited with in Wikipedia.

"I am going to start this off by stating that I have never stalked you" The User Interaction Tool suggests differently, as does the more than a dozen times I requested that you stopped dipping in articles where you would revert and then never discuss. I dunno - maybe you really believe you weren't stalking or trolling. Your actions speak differently, though, as do your edits. You show up at most articles after I do.

"I'm done with your pathetic attempts to get me to bend over and accept your will" I am sorry, but I don't like you in that way, and that you even think of it in those sorts of terms is pretty disturbing. As I have pointed out to you at least a dozen times, it isn't about you. It never was, and never will be. I only think about you in terms of how to get you to listen to reason. As you haven't demonstrated any ability at this, you can guess how frustrating it is for me as well.

"Proof?" Of you jumping in on an edit-war? I'd be delighted. Of course, for the older instances of you trolling would take time - it goes back years. The first instance is when you came in after another editor had already made three reverts and you came to their defense because, you know, it was me on the other side of the argument This one occurring after Adamstom.97 had used up all of his reverts for the day. So, yeah, you do that. A lot. As indicated by your own, particularly disturbing block record. My last block was over a year ago, so hello pot, meet kettle; nice try at poisoning the well, though.

" Was there not a point where you called an editor racist" I surely did, as the editor seemed to think that one Asian group was just like any other, but you know, good on you for taking the discussion completely out of context. As someone married to an Asian with an Asian son, I tend to take offense to racist comments, even subtle ones, and I am not going to be gentle after I have given them ample opportunity to withdraw an identifiably racist statement.

"A solid admission on knowing that they are violating the WP:CIVIL policy. You may not be here to make friends, but that does not mean that you cannot post in a civil and neutral manner, so that the dispute can be solved in an easy manner" You again miss the point. That I tend to cuss isn't an attack on you (though you seem to think it is), or that I tend to grow impatient with people who troll my edits and and follow me around to different articles. I didn't say I didn't want to make friends. I said that the articles come first; people who tend to get in the way of making articles better by edit-warring or misinterpreting sources and resist reason don't end up with my best attitude. Judging from your own AN:I history, I am guessing that more than a few editors have trouble extending you AGF because of your tendency to edit-war and troll.

"I've requeted (sic) that you cease posting on my talk page, which I am well within my rights to do, but do you follow that either? No." Err, when have you made this request? I mean, I am totally okay with not posting on your page unless I absolutely have to. You following and trolling my edits makes that a little difficult. I'd submit that if you have a problem with me asking you to not troll my edits, maybe the best course of action would be for you to, you know, stop trolling my edits.

"(Alex rarely engages in discussion, and - to my knowledge - has never initiated discussion). How would you know? Unless you've been stalking my edits for the past three and a half years, watching what I do and if I start a discussion" I am sorry, I meant to say that you have never initiated discussion after reverting me. Or several other people. My apologies for not being more clear. And Editor Interaction Tool seems to think you've been editing in the same articles as me for several more years than three. And even if it were only three - you've spent well over a year and a half actively hounding my edits and sticking your thumb in my eye in several articles I have edited in.

The main point is this, Alex: you kept on baiting me until I went looking to see what kind of editor you are outside of your trollin in the article where I am. I see the same problems, so while that makes me feel a little better about your behavior, it makes me sad that you continually run into this sort of problem with other editors.

The simplest solution is for you to please stop stalking my edits. You clearly don't like it when people check out your editing, so stop doing it to others. Learn. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh Alex, when will you just stop? When you stop harassing editors and assuming that no blame lies on you at all.

Actually, it isn't "my opinion" when people argue that a policy or guideline means one thing when it clearly is widely known to be something else completely. It is when multiple editors disagree with you on it. A bit like how, during your stalking, you completely misinterpreated the TVUPCOMING guideline when you attempted to "innocently" start a discussion as if you'd been meaning to all along, against the consensus formed by the television Manual of Style. However, we digress; content disputes belong on their individual talk pages.

"Proof?" Of you jumping in on an edit-war? That is restoring the status quo of articles, and I am perfectly within my rights to do so without it being considered edit warring. If you need an update on what it means to edit war, then you need to take that elsewhere and do it yourself. And when I asked for proof, I asked for proof of my apparent stalking - unless it's nothing more than an accusation?

I surely did, as the editor seemed to think that one Asian group was just like any other, but you know, good on you for taking the discussion completely out of context. It doesn't matter what context it was taken in - you used derogatory terms at another editor and that is unnacceptable. As someone married to an Asian with an Asian son, I tend to take offense to racist comments I don't give a damn about your personal problems and life issues. You leave your life at the login page of Wikipedia, and edit and discuss in a civil manner. Everyone else has to follow the policy of civility - why are you the only special one that doesn't?

That I tend to cuss isn't an attack on you It's not up to you to declare how you statements are meant to be taken. If you didn't mean it to be offensive, and an editor takes offense of it, then they took offense to it, no matter what you say, and you need to act on that. people who tend to get in the way of making articles better by edit-warring or misinterpreting sources and resist reason don't end up with my best attitude. Luckily for all of us, that's not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to declare that someone else is edit-warring over your edits, and then get into the edit-war yourself and parade around as the hero. We are all equally to blame for edit wars - it does not take just one editor to war. Judging from your own AN:I history, I am guessing that more than a few editors have trouble extending you AGF because of your tendency to edit-war and troll. I recall a saying about black pots and kettles...

Err, when have you made this request? Multiple times over the past several years, and you ignore every single request. So, tell me more about how I ignore your requests?

I am sorry, I meant to say that you have never initiated discussion after reverting me. Yeah, you never said that, and now you're twisting the story to fit your own agenda. Editor Interaction Tool seems to think you've been editing in the same articles as me for several more years than three. Perhaps if you actually did your research and checked the article with a seven year difference, you'd find that you edited the article in 2010, then I did in 2017. Are you going to claim that as stalking as well? Do you have any proof to back that up? Or have I gone through your 9k edits and checked every one of them? That would be the sort of thing you'd claim. Or are you actually going to do your research and find that your claims have no base? Seven years. What a blatant lie. You can't deny it was anything but that.

you kept on baiting me I have never baited you, that's your naturally pessimistic views assuming the worse. Even if I had, you should be old enough and grown up enough to ignore it. The simplest solution is for you to please stop stalking my edits. You know what's going to be the most obvious thing when an admin looks at this report? The same accusation over and over again from you, with still no proof to back it up! You have provided no examples of my stalking you. As I stated, very clearly: Every revert of mine belonging to some edit of yours has been through a page that was already on my watchlist, or eventually added to it (for example, an article a series I've started watching, who's page I started following). -- Alex^TW 08:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this up AlexTheWhovian, I had been planning on doing this myself for quite a while. Jack Sebastian is vulgar, aggressive, and hostile. You only have to read his user page to figure that out, but you can also look at just about any discussion he has ever had with me (and presumably many more). This talk page is full of personal attacks against me, including claims that I am racist, that I don't know what I am doing, and a ridiculous red herring argument that I was adding an actress to the article who I thought was "hot" rather than doing what I thought was best for the article. I particularly want to highlight the racism bit, because that came from Jack misinterpreting a statement, and then when the mistake was pointed out to him, he doubled down on his claim and started labeling every other editor involved in the conversation as racist. It was wrong and insulting, and has now become much worse considering this nice comment in which Jack uses my nationality to suggest that I don't understand basic English (New Zealand is an English speaking country, by the way). There are also repeated examples of Jack insisting that his version of an article is the correct one that must stay until consensus is formed against it, ignoring the actual status quo, and has even gone so far as to label standard, every-day edits as "bold" edits just so he can use BRD to undo them. I can provide some specific diffs if needed, there are a lot of examples to choose from. Recently, Jack has even decided that guidelines such as MOS:TENSE do not apply to him, and that he can just deliberately vandalise articles with incorrect English here. And here is a good example of Jack reverting my edit with the catchy summary "nice try"—this edit was the implementation of clear consensus from a long-abandoned discussion. Honestly, I can go on and on about all the terrible things Jack has said to me, the obvious disrespect and disgust that he has directed my way, accusations of canvassing just because other editors have supported me, and most importantly the way this has all impacted the quality of several articles and my interest in working on them, but there is just so much to cover. It has gotten to the point where I just cannot reasonably assume that Jack is acting in good faith, and that is not a healthy state for the Wikipedia community to be getting to. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I took a look at Talk:The Gifted (TV series). I'm seeing Adamstom.97 make a statement that would look, to a lot of people, as being at the very least not entirely PC. Perhaps Adamstom.97, who does not appear to live in north-east Asia or be north-east Asian himself, is unaware, but "they all look alike" is a fairly commonly invoked, overtly racist, stereotype of people of north-east Asian ancestry. (Actually, I thought that was the case, but when I checked it turned out that it's "other races" in general.) Jack overreacted, and then within three days apologized for overreacting and explained calmly what he thought the problem with the article content was. Adamstom has, in the two months since, intermittently and needlessly injected "You called me racist" into the discussion, and in fact did so here again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

ahh yes, it was only a matter of time before Adamstom saw an opportunity to try and pile on. He considers my user page vulgar, which is news to me, because he's the only person to have suggested such on over 7 years. Additionally, he's the fellow who was edit-warring - you know, instead of discussing.

Adamstom was called out for his racism in suggesting that readers cannot tell one Asian woman from another - which is pretty damn offensive. So yeah, there's that. Content-wise, Adamstom insisted that a source said one thing when it clearly didn't, and it took a few other editors telling him exactly what I was telling him to get him to stop spinning in circles on the his interpretation and melding of three different sources into something none of them suggested. He doesn't consider BRD to be applicable to him.

In short, editors like Adamstom make editing in Wikipedia articles unpleasant, because they make the edits all about them, and adopt OWN-y attitudes about them. Its frankly exhausting. Add to that a trolling stalker like AlextheWhovian, and the fact that they troll and behave badly with relative disregard for basic civility, and it makes me doubt how these people are allowed to either game the system or treat it like their fiefdom. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, he's the fellow who was edit-warring - you know, instead of discussing. Edit warring is not a one person job. Were you constantly reverting Adam, regardless of their actions, to force your preferred version? Yes? That's edit-warring. Did you request that your version be reverted to by an admin before they protected page, knowing full well that they will do no such thing? Even worse.

Adamstom was called out for his racism in suggesting that readers cannot tell one Asian woman from another You're one who complains about everybody taking things out of context, when you do exactly the same. Adam never said any such thing like this. I don't care about your wife and child and their nationality, they're not an excuse for you to claim racism about everything that you misread (deliberately or not). He doesn't consider BRD to be applicable to him. Funny, because neither do you. See the initial revert - notice how it starts with your initial edit, then your reverts to continue forcing that edit even after the content was disputed and removed? That's BRD: You made the bold edit, someone reverted it, you need to discuss it. Or have you applied your own meaning to BRD?

adopt OWN-y attitudes about them Provide instances of anything that Adam has done, that are listed as examples of what OWN means. Just like you are unable to provide any proof of my apparent "stalking", I highly doubt that you will be able to provide anything that supports this either. Add to that a trolling stalker like AlextheWhovian You've said variants of the word "troll" over a dozen times in this discussion - anyone get an idea that you're trying to compensate for the lack of any form of basis for your accusations? I do. -- Alex^TW 08:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize everyone's wall of text. AlextheWhovian filed a complaint here because he says I was hounding his edits. This is despite his having done precisely the same thing over at least the past year. When I ask him to stop, he ignores and blanks the request. Did I look back at some of his edits? Yep, and found some problematic ones...and I've initiated discussion with regards to each problem that I found. Alex reverts, but does not discuss. That's just plain truth. That I have a problem with and react negatively to someone following and sniping at my edits for years is also plain truth.

I'm not going to address Adamstom's opportunist post beyond what I've already said. He's not the sort of editor who actually listens to constructive criticism when offered, and then wonders why people grow disappointed with and dismissive of him. I know that's not civil, but AGF isn't a suicide pact. If someone doesn't get it, its important to help them get it. If I get frustrated at their behavior, that seems only natural.

Anyhoo, this is all about whether I hounded someone else's edits. Consider the source of the accusations - someone who's been asked to stop stalking me for at least a year (according to earlier provided DIFFS), who's totally ignored said requests. The report here is cherry-picked; I'm not perfect, but the two fellows accusing me both have hefty block records and are bad actors in this complaint. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This thread is sorely lacking on diffs for a lot of things. I noticed the racist thing and it's something fairly serious but with no diffs it's hard to get a gauge of what happened. So some looking in talk pages and following links and search eventually found [27]. The rest of the thread is here Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#Fan Bingbing as Blink Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree; hence the large number of diffs that I provided in my original report to back up my claims. The other editor, unfortunately, as continued to display their inability to provide any diffs and bases their arguments on false accusations. -- Alex^TW 08:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize everyone's wall of text. Yeah, you don't get to do that. You've got two editors, one who filed a report and one who was going to, listing your heinous actions. It's up to the admins to summarize what they believe has happened, and not you to do in your flippant manner, acting all "holier than thou" as if you've done nothing at all. This is despite his having done precisely the same thing over at least the past year. And yet, all these walls of text later, and you have no proof, where I have provided irrefutable proof that an admin themselves agreed upon.

He's not the sort of editor who actually listens to constructive criticism when offered And yet, he agrees to discuss with you for days and weeks on end, until you deliberately wear him down and claim victory like someone who would own the article. people grow disappointed with and dismissive of him You mean you. There are far more actors who have worked peacefully and collaboratively with Adam, and far less who have had an issue with him.

(according to earlier provided DIFFS) I'm not seeing any by you, just as Nil Einne said. The report here is cherry-picked Your personal opinion. I listed the events that went down in order, including the edits you later made to the articles that I have edited. I can provide screenshots of the revert notifications as well, since you removed the edit summaries. -- Alex^TW 08:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up another thing. Here, Coffee suggested an IBAN. I would like to second this suggestion of an IBAN, in the form of a two-way between between myself and Jack, and a two-way between between myself and Adam. This is bound to cut down on the increasing number of disputes between these pairings, and will result in less tension between the editors involved, as we will be unable to interact with each other. I don't see this report resulting in niceness being formed between Jack, and Adam and myself, so perhaps this is the best way to go forwards. -- Alex^TW 08:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Both the OP and Adamstom.97 have been exhibiting behaviour far beyond the pale of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for some time, so I find it incredibly odd that they would try to bring Jack Sebastian to ANI when that user has been trying to call them out for their frankly atrocious behaviour (see for example here). Alex's behaviour here (and Adamstom's in the linked talk page) are things that frankly I was shocked didn't lead to immediate blocks: the only explanation I can think of is that admins avoid this topic area even with their ten-foot poles. (Bish admitted as much when I practically begged her to intervene here.) I have been struggling to think of a way to deal with this problem for some time (as has User:Curly Turkey[28] and probably many others), and since this thread is already TLDR I think the only admin action that could come of it would be from the already debateably involved User:Coffee, so I'd say this thread should be closed without action, but if anyone does want to issue blocks for the non-stop disruption the OP and his tag-team partner have been causing of late, they'll find no opposition from me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pending a specific complaint about his misuse of them, I'm hoping whoever closes this restore Jack Sebastian's user rights. Rebbing 10:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The above editor, as always, feels the need to insert himself into reports that have nothing to do with him. This really takes me back to the X-Men days - coming into a report, commenting based solely on personal opinions of the editors and siding with the editor opposing the ones you have a vendetta against, and admittedly not knowing or reading anything about the issue itself. I've never said that our behaviour was anything of a Grade A level. However, Jack has, and refuses to admit any wrongdoing. That's the main issue here. If any side-report needs to be opened, by all means, supply the diffs - you'll find a great example in the initial report of this post.

You started the post on Adam's talk page and we responded accordingly. If any editor has that much to say about you, perhaps you need to look into your own behaviour before you start accusing others; noted how you dodged most of what I wrote and went off dancing to other people's talk pages, another thing which is heavily frowned upon here - you yourself were re warned about this by the very editor you are defending. If you want to talk about NPA, recall your own personal attacks, something along the lines of calling a specific group of people the sectarian cabal of editors who rule over the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles with an iron fist to accuse another user of OWN behaviour.

The only admin action that is going to come out of this is what the admins decide for themselves, not what you say. Your opposition and agreement is not necessary or even noted here. -- Alex^TW 13:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite understand "The above editor, as always, feels the need to insert himself into reports that have nothing to do with him". Regardless of whether Hijiri88's (I think this is who you are referring to?) intervention is helpful, I don't really 'insert himself into reports that have nothing to do with him'. The whole point of coming to ANI is get the attention of admins and experienced editors. Sometimes the course of action is obvious an so an admin takes action without any real feedback. Other times, things are less clear and so action (or no action) only happens after discussion. Again this isn't to support Hijiri88's specific intervention, and we always have to take care not to create more unnecessary drama, but if there is a issue with the specific intervention or intervention style, that's the problem not that the 'insert himself into reports'. If people don't want outside intervention, then ANI is not the place to ask. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies; yes, it is who I'm referring to. My post wasn't indented properly. Yes, ANI is primarily to get the attention of admins, and a few experienced editors, once they have read the discussion and have their own opinion on the issue. However, when the same experienced editors contribute to every ANI report that I specifically file, due to their vendetta against me, and where they admit (in previous discussions) that they didn't read it at all and are only commenting because they don't approve of my edits here, then it becomes a bit and predictable. -- Alex^TW 13:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex, you don't get to choose who comments on your ANI threads. I know a lot more about this case than you are willing to present already, because I've already seen the source of the problem. Adamstom.97, a long-time collaborator of yours, was engaged in highly disruptive behaviour across multiple articles, absolutely refusing to stay focused on article content on the talk page, and making life frankly pretty miserable for anyone who didn't agree with him. I called the user out on his talk page, which drew the attention of JS, who had his own dispute with Adam, and you, who apparently took it upon yourself to post harassing responses to anyone who criticized Adam. JS has been in conflict with the two of you for some time, and it is clear that throughout the majority of it he has been on the receiving end of your harassment. I know this because I was as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I again find it really weird that AlexTheWhovian would voluntarily bring up this disaster. I'm guessing I will soon be subjected to another string of harassing attacks by a mysterious IP who happens to sound exactly like AlexTheWhovian, claiming that I'm injecting myself into a whole bunch of ANI threads that don't involve me even though this is only the third ANI thread I've commented in more than once in three months. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

When you try to get certain editors' paritcipation stopped or ignored, one has to wonder what you're trying to hide. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex, you don't get to choose who comments on your ANI threads. I don't get to choose, no. But I do get to note how it's so coincidental how you pop up on every report I file. Interesting, no?

and you, who apparently took it upon yourself to post harassing responses to anyone who criticized Adam Because, naturally, you and Jack just happened to claim innocence over everything, and it everything here was all our fault. Oh no, how mighty bad of us! Are you and Jack the truly innocent parties? Most definitely not. Are Adam and I the truly innocent parties? Most definitely not.

I'm guessing I will soon be subjected to another string of harassing attacks by a mysterious IP who happens to sound exactly like AlexTheWhovian So, you are accusing me of sockpuppetry? Do you have any evidence or proof to back this up? Or are you taking a page out of Jack's book and making baseless accusations with zero diffs to back it up? Why, I believe you are.

When you try to get certain editors' paritcipation stopped or ignored, one has to wonder what you're trying to hide. When you try to drop a comment in like this, one has to wonder why you're even here, or if you're just here to fuel the flames. -- Alex^TW 00:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm here because I'm aware of your pattern of behaviour—inlcuding this sort of FUD you use to silence those who note your behaviour. Do I have a history of "fuel[ing] the flames" with you? Or is this just FUDdy deflection from your behaviour? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I was monitoring this page for a response to another thread I had commented in further up. I saw Adamstom.97 and Jack Sebastian's names, and decided to take a gander.

Could you please try to be a bit more civil in your interactions with me and other editors? It is not a good idea to make everyone you have a minor conflict with feel like shit.

Actually I was accusing you of meatpuppetry, but same diff. The evidence is right there in the link I provided: you started accusing me of intruding on other people's ANI threads and making everything about me, and then an IP mysteriously showed up and started saying the same. The incident so disturbed me I went into a month-long ANI exile. It's either you continuing your harassment of me while logged-out, someone you contacted off-wiki to harass me while logged-out, or a massive coincidence that you and an IP both attack me in the same way in the same ANI thread, when no one else has ever made such observations about me in my twelve years editing Wikipedia.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you please try to be a bit more civil in your interactions with me and other editors? Treat others how you expect to be treated - isn't that how the saying goes? I'd recommend you do the same if that's the treatment you want, or shall I recall the multitude of personal attacks you've given as well? If you must know, someone contacted me off-wiki back during our last encounter at ANI, about their previous experiences with you, but I have no requirement to state who it was or what they said. -- Alex^TW 01:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would like you to present evidence of "the multitude of personal attacks [I]'ve given" you. You've been going around badmouthing me like this for months, and so far you have not been able to present a shred of evidence in support of your claims. Note that, per WP:WIAPA, accusations of misbehaviour made without evidence qualify as personal attacks.

Anyway, I have a few guesses who it was who contacted you off-wiki, but I would recommend that, whoever it was, you keep your comments about me and other users limited to (a) your own experience and (b) evidence you have verified; it would not do for you to act as a mouthpiece for someone who is too cowardly to attack me directly (or who perhaps is not allowed per some editing restriction).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh. I wasn't aware of WP:WIAPA. Now I can use that in this exact report against Jack and his claims of stalking, thanks for that! And I'll base my comments on what I like; when others feel the need to contact me elsewhere about editors I'm involved with, it seems like a necessary addition to me. Especially when it happens multiple times. -- Alex^TW 02:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe I missed this until now (I was too hung up on Alex's dodging the question about providing evidence), but I asked Alex to keep his comments about my behaviour limited to ... evidence [he] ha[d] verified, and his response was I'll base my comments on what I like. He explicitly admitted to having no interest in backing up his statements about me with evidence or even making sure the rumours he heard about me were accurate before repeating them. How has not been blocked for this already? Why am I only asking for him to receive a final warning rather than an indefinite block until he withdraws his promise to continue making up lies and posting them on ANI without evidence? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your self-confessed ignorance of what WP:NPA, the policy you claim you want enforced and the policy which you have now accused me twice in this thread of violating, actually says aside, I'm calling your bluff: please explain what you meant by If you want to talk about NPA, recall your own personal attacks and shall I recall the multitude of personal attacks you've given.

Seriously. I find such accusations personally offensive, and if you can find any legitimate instances of me issuing personal attacks against you or Adamstom.97, please link them so I can apologize and make amends.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The dueling walls of text in this thread are definitely doing a good job of keeping people out of this thread generally, that's for sure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I don't see anything here being resolved, but something needs to be done; that's why I suggested a solution to our problem and highlighted it in bold, so that it could be seen by the admins among the walls of text here. -- Alex^TW 00:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Sorry, I was away most of the weekend doing holiday prep. Imagine my surprise when I come back to learn that I am not the only person that Alex has been bothering for over a year.

With respect to Alexthewhovian and Adamstom, I do get to summarize an argument, especially if I have been named as the so-called source of that argument. So, instead of creating a wall of text with colored, cherry-picked comments, I'll use broad strokes here.

The smaller problem first: Adamstom in essence thinks I am a disrespectful, foul-mouthed bully. This opinion of his been the source of every argument he has had with me since we started interacting. I agree that I don't pull punches when editing, and maybe I should. Not everyone learns at the same pace, and text alone can fail to impart true meaning. So, Adamstom, if you feel I have bullied you, then I apologize. I don't want you to feel that your entorely voluntary editing is useless, or disrespected. It isn't. I think you put too much of your own opinions into how ypu look at sources, but that's a problem that can be corrected with time or mentoring. As for my language, I own that, and am not apologizing for it. Part of editing here is learning to work with people with whom you have nothing in common with towards a common goal.

The larger problem, as I see it, lies with Alexthewhovian. I have documented (with DIFFs) several instances over just the past year where Alex has followed me to various articles and opposed (ie. reverted) my edits - and usually, only my edits. Anyone using the tool can see that many of our interactions occurred on articles where I edited first, and then Alex showed up. I am not sure if there is a tool that shows if I am on his watchlist, but if there is, I would not be surprised if was on Alex' list. The DIFFs I noted earlier clearly show me asking him repeatedly to stop stalking my edits. I wouldn't have been asking for this time and again, without reason.

And yet, when I find fault with less than 5 of Alex' edits, he cries foul and reports me for "hounding" him? Hello kettle, meet pot. I guess it would be trivial to point out that in each of the instances where I reverted Alex' edits, I initiated conversation ( 1, 2, 3, 4), and even expanded on the article for the last one. It bears noting that in almost all of the areas where Alex has reverted me, he hasn't bothering initiating conversation. He certainly hasn't contributed to any of the discussions initiated by me for the aforementioned edits he reverted, and he was clearly active during this time.

I don't hound editors who I dislike, even if I think they're bad for Wikipedia, because - and this is key - I simply didn't have the time to follow them around, to catch them doing something to either confirm my worry or alleviate it. In almost instances where I saw a problematic editor, they pretty much fashioned the noose for themselves without my help, or they were mentored into a better editor. I want the articles to be better, and I concentrate on that. It isn't about me, or anyone else. It is about the articles, full stop.

This is not, (again, imo) how Alex approaches editing. He makes it about himself. Over some likely far-away argument from years ago, he's chosen to stalk my edits enough that I've had to ask him to stop on several occasions; that's simply a fact. This entire pot/kettle complaint is him, again trying to go after me. If it wasn't so transparent (as evidenced by his own behavior here and elsewhere), it would probably be personally disturbing. In short, Alex doesn't play well with others, and he doesn't play fair. Not sure if that's a actionable offense, but it probably drives people from the project. It has certainly made me wonder why I am editing for free when someone gets to stalk and snipe at my edits with impunity for years, and yet reports me and an exuberant Cofffee is chomping at the bit to yank all my rights (even now, Coffee is all frosty about restoring them).

So, sorry for the extra textwall; maybe I've managed to sum up the real problem. I apologize to Adamstom for making him feel less than valued. Alex is a bad person and has been stalking me for years. That's pretty much it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

And still no proof of any hounding on my end on pages that weren't on my watchlist. It's almost as if you can't provide any... See my report for some great examples, if you need some. It's alright, I forgive you. Anyways, I've recently come into some interesting information regarding this whole thing, so I think I'll focus on that for now, see what it comes up with. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 05:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex, given your own penchant for bogus hounding accusations (Ctrl+F this page for But I do get to note how it's so coincidental how you pop up on every report I file. Interesting, no?, not to mention this), I wouldn't be demanding proof when others make the same accusation against you. And you still have not provided the request diffs of my "multitude of personal attacks" against you. Were you just hurling accusations like that because you enjoy it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Still waiting on that evidence of my multitude of personal attacks against you. I've become increasingly tired of your bogus accusations. You should have anticipated me calling your bluff the second time you pulled it, which was weeks ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: An uninvolved party has !voted against my proposal that you be formally issued a final warning for your repeated baseless accusations that I engaged in personal attacks against you, apparently based on the belief that you had provided evidence. But I still cannot find where you provided that evidence. Whether your evidence of hounding by Jack was adequate (I am not convinced, but I don't really care if others were), your accusations against me were made with no evidence whatsoever. You have now, apparently, withdrawn your claim that I have been hounding you and Adam by admitting that you were wrong to claim I had no bona fide interest in superhero movies, but I would also appreciate that you either cough up the evidence of "personal attacks" or withdraw that claim as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jack, I gotta say, even though I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote in the above comment, I don't think posting extremely long comments helps situations on ANI. There has been only one occasion I can recall when I posted such long comments on a drahma board thread and wound up getting my desired result anyway, and that was five years ago. Additionally, I don't think you are giving User:Coffee the benefit of the doubt here: in my experience, that one also doesn't pull any punches, and nine times out of ten it's for the best. I wouldn't blame any one who isn't already involved for thinking you, and not Alex and Adam, is the problem here, given how difficult this thread is to read. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand; everyone feel like they need to (over)explain a situation to explain the nuances of the problem. I guess I'm guulty of that, too. I could spend time posting DIFFs of where I've asked Alex to stop stalking my edits, but I've already done that. Aprt from striking all of my posts and bullet-pointing the issue, I'm not sure how to proceed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Final warning (civility and NPA) for AlexTheWhovian

Per the above, it is clear that baseless accusations of hounding and personal attacks are a recurring problem with AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) (see here for some of the evidence). I would therefore like to propose he be issued with a final warning, and the next time he makes a claim like "you have made a multitude of personal attacks" or "you are hounding me" without evidence, he can be blocked without prior warning by any uninvolved admin. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 08:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC))

• Support as proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the very first post by AlexTheWhovian provides clear evidence for WP:HOUNDING, and I don't see any other accusations by him. All of the participants here have a long history with each other and there shouldn't be any unilateral sanctions for "personal attacks". power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, Power-enwiki, I guess it was missed int he wall of text. Here are the links for the several times over just the past year where I've requested Alex to stop hounding my own edits - clearly to no avail: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.). And believe me, that's just a small part of this list. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: My interactions with Alex were limited to one ANI thread and one article talk page earlier this year, until about three weeks ago. During those three weeks, Alex has twice accused me of hounding him, even though that's blatantly untrue. He's also accused me several times of posting a "multitude of personal attacks", and when I requested evidence four times and counting, he refused to reply, or replied with a complete non sequitur. His OP comment didn't apparently mention me, so if it included "clear evidence of WP:HOUNDING" on my part I must have missed it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: diffs? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I've already posted most of the diffs in other comments throughout this thread, but here they are again in a more comprehensive/concise format.

Extended content

False accusations of hounding: it is clear that the only reason you return to contribute to these articles and talk pages, when you've stated you have little interest in them, is to start further drama and drive editors out[29] [sarcastic comment that I won't quote out of context as it would give the wrong impression][30] I do get to note how it's so coincidental how you pop up on every report I file. Interesting, no?[31] (Note that Alex has indicated an awareness of an ArbCom case involving me from back in 2015, two years before my first interaction with him, so I don't doubt he could present evidence of my having engaged in personal attacks that were already addressed in that ArbCom case; but honestly, I think going back through someone's history from two years earlier because they commented in a single ANI thread, which was the extent of my interaction with him to that point, and then especially this kind of thing, shows that when Alex accuses me of hounding, he's calling the WP:KETTLE black; this is what makes me really want to believe Jack when he says the same here.) False accusations of personal attacks: Amusing how you ask that we remove attacks - do you see us asking you to remove your attacks? How about you strike your entire initial post? I find it a blatant personal attack.[32] If you want to talk about NPA, recall your own personal attacks[33] shall I recall the multitude of personal attacks you've given as well?[34] Refusal to provide evidence or withdraw accusations: And there you are again, with your "strike this, strike that", dictating editors yet again on what they can and cannot post. Amusing how you ask that we remove attacks - do you see us asking you to remove your attacks? ... I refuse to strike any part of my post, I stand by every word of it and would repeat it all again.[35] [response to a direct request for evidence with a non-sequitur that ignored the request][36] (Ctrl+F this page for "multitude" to see all the subsequent times I've pinged him requesting evidence and been ignored, although I already pinged you with the latest one.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see the diff [37] above now. You were hinting at it before he commented on your post, and he said (with likely sarcasm) that he agreed with your statement. It probably would have been better for AlexTheWhovian to have not commented, but it's nothing serious. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I was off compiling them. There are a lot more than just that one. It's really obvious that he is hounding me (he engaged in ironic use of the "thank" function specifically to make me aware that he was "watching" my edits to a page he himself had never touched, and dug through my long edit history a couple of days after my first interaction with him) which inclines me to give Jack's word more weight when Jack and Alex each claim the other is hounding them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Those diffs are helpful, I understand the motivation for this request better now. At first glance, some of them are simply acknowledging a long history of bad blood, while others are problematic on AlexTheWhovian's part. I'll read through the full back-story of them all tomorrow (unless some actual admins comment so I don't have to). power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The "long history of bad blood" is manufactured, though. My first interaction with him was in that ANI thread in May, I briefly interacted with him on this talk page around the same time, and then nothing until that "it is clear that the only reason" remark three weeks ago. One week in May. That's it. (BTW, I had remembered the Iron Fist incident earlier, but not the exact nature of the interaction. Reading over it now, it occurs to me I could add a bunch more diffs from there if I wanted. But I don't.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot that there had been a 30-minute back-and-forth (that I posted one last reply to when I woke up ten hours later) on an ANI thread Alex was canvassed to but that had nothing to do with him.

Interestingly enough, that exchange centered largely around me letting slip my private suspicion that he was hounding me (again -- within three days of his first direct interaction with me, he was going back through an ArbCom case involving me from two years earlier), Alex demanding that I withdraw said accusation, and me complying as soon as I figured out what he was talking about. Puts the above Amusing how you ask that we remove attacks - do you see us asking you to remove your attacks? How about you strike your entire initial post? I find it a blatant personal attack.[38] in perspective.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: #1 is the same issue as the original post here. #2 through #5 are places where you accuse him of hounding, not where he accuses you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, but that was my point; Alex has been hounding me for years. He hasn't seen fit to stop in all that time. In each of the instances I request him to stop hounding, all he did was revert, not discuss. In each of the instances for which I am accused of "hounding," I initiated discussion. My edits are in good faith (because I look for community involvement). Alex does it for no other reason than to stalk my edits. He hasn't contributed to any conversation where he has reverted, save for the most recent topic. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

And it bears pointing out that my requests for Alex to stop stalking my edits follows days of hounding on various articles. I could post more, but then I run the risk of STALE. If yiu want them, I will sit down and put them all together. Trust me, there's a lot of Alex' problematic behavior to sort out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you not start those discussions after this report was filed? And I'm more interested in your diffs of my stalking. I could post on Jimbo Wales's talk page and ask him to stop sending me roses in the mail. Doesn't mean he actually did. If I sent a picture of his roses, yes, that's proof. So, diffs of my edits, please. Thanks. -- Alex^TW 06:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Diffs of my "multitude of personal attacks" first. To paraphrase a kinda-racist caricature-villain from a great 1980s movie I am sure you have seen, you are in a position unsuitable to make requests like the above. This is at least the sixth time I have requested the evidence from you, after the fifth time you ignored me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support . I haven't commented on this thread before now so as to stay out of Alex's line of fire, but must support this proposal. I, too, have been subjected to Alex's threats, edit warring and bullying, and am pleased to see someone finally having the courage to stand up to him and call him on his actions. I haven't read all the walls of text, but would add ownership to his behavior on numerous television articles. On many of these articles, nothing happens if Alex doesn't approve, and he abuses AN3 reports as a means to intimidate editors. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: No courage. Just frustration at being subjected to repeated false accusations for the crime of commenting on this ANI thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Alex isn't a villain here, but neither is Jack. They both just need to avoid each other since they seem to really, really rub each other the wrong way. There's been a fairly steady stream of WP:POKE going on with both parties (albeit one more than the other, in my estimation). Hijiri88's proposal is too far over the top to be effective and would just garner resentment, setting these editors up for failure. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I think there may have been a miscommunication. My proposal amounts to "Alex has engaged in false accusations of both NPA-violation and HOUNDING, against several mutually uninvolved parties, and has repeatedly refused to retract said accusations or provide evidence. This is unacceptable. He is to be spared a block on this occasion, but the next time he does so, he should be blocked." Technically, the policy already allows for him to be blocked immediately, without warning, by any uninvolved admin -- or even by an involved admin -- if they determine he has engaged in this kind of behaviour. So I don't see how reaffirming that general policy could be considered too far over the top.

I have apparently been having quite a bit of trouble getting my point across in this discussion (see Jack's talk page, where I had an extended back-and-forth with him about the basic definition of an interaction ban, and wound up having to get an admin to come in and say what I had been saying more clearly; or my miscommunication with Drmargi two subheadings down from here), which makes it very easy to assume something in my proposal misled you about what exactly it was meant to do. If so, I apologize.

Alternatively, maybe you think the evidence I compiled is insufficient to have an ANI closer formally state "Alex has done..." and restate the policy as an explicit warning directed at Alex? If so, I can go get some more diffs. The extent of my interactions with Alex is contained within the above archive links (not the diffs), although I wouldn't blame you for not having waded through all of it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Four separate two-way IBANs

As per the entire report and resultant discussion above, it is clear to any reader of the discussion that this feud is not going to end, concerning both this thread and the ones that have preceded it. I therefore propose four separate IBANs, between the two editors supporting the initial report, and the two editors opposing the report (Jack Sebastian, Hijiri88, AlexTheWhovian, Adamstom.97). That is, to be more specific, I am suggesting IBANs between:

• Jack Sebastian and AlexTheWhovian
• Hijiri88 and AlexTheWhovian
• Jack Sebastian and Adamstom.97
• Hijiri88 and Adamstom.97

As can be noted by my recent absence in this thread, I have attempted to impose my own IBAN by distancing myself away from the drama here, as I have neither the time, desire or dedication to keep the drama in this thread going. However, the pings I have received have made this difficult, hence this proposal. The suggestion for an IBAN actually came from another editor, Coffee, in this comment; this nomination expands upon that comment. -- Alex^TW 03:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support as the nominator. -- Alex^TW 03:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• No wayPartial support (see below) Not if you're going to continue to insist that I don't actually have an interest in superhero movies and TV shows and only edit those articles to get in fights with you and Adam. While you and Adam no longer being able to directly harass me would be nice, it's obvious that your proposal is based on the false assumption that I have been hounding you, and the same is likely true for Jack. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Per my back-and-forth with Jack below, and on Jack's talk page, and even my message on Coffee's talk page, I think a two-way IBAN for Jack and Alex would be a good idea. I don't see enough evidence of disruption between Adam and Jack to merit an IBAN at this time. And I have no earthly idea how I come into it -- if Alex wanted to avoid drama with me, he could just stop making making bogus "personal attack" accusations against me and repeating harassing remarks he apparently heard about me from a blocked editor off-wiki and didn't bother verifying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

And I just noticed the As can be noted by my recent absence in this thread, I have attempted to ... distanc[e] myself away from the drama here ... However, the pings I have received have made this difficult, hence this proposal. bit in the above. Alex has just admitted that he wants an IBAN with me to evade his responsibility as a Wikipedian not to make accusations of misbehaviour without evidence by ignoring requests that he provide evidence in support of his claims, and wants an excuse to continue violating policy as he has been doing. This is blatantly unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. You do actually have an interest in superhero movies and TV shows and don't only edit those articles to get in fights with me and Adam. I don't care who's hounding who, I've no interest in any more of this drama. Hence, IBAN. -- Alex^TW 04:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

TLDR: requesting four new sanctions, three of which have not been discussed at all in the three days this thread has been open, and two of which involve a non-party to the dispute that led to the thread, is not the right way to tone down the drama. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, how does your proposal address the problem that we all edit the same articles quite frequently (me and Jack a little less in absolute terms since he edits less than you and Adam, and I edit less than you and have more diverse interests, and me and you in a little less in relative terms since I have more diverse interests and you also edit articles on TV shows the rest of us are apparently not interested in)? Will you and Adamstom.97 not revert my edits any more? What if Adamstom.97 notices them (and he will -- he clearly has all the MCU pages on his watchlist) and doesn't like them? And what about the fact that I know a lot of those articles were written in (almost?) their entirety by Adam? This came up back in 2015 with my IBAN with Catflap08, Catflap08 continued to manually revert my edits and use the fact that we both edited the same articles as an excuse for his supposedly not knowing that I was the one who made those edits, and the resulting mess was ... something I'd really rather not relitigate. You clearly have not thought this through very well. Perhaps you thought through the idea of a two-way IBAN between you and Jack (@Jack Sebastian: what do you think of that?). (edit conflict) Sorry for the redundant ping. Jack's opposition reinforces my belief that this would solve nothing. Take it from someone who knows: IBANs in cases like this are damn-near impossible to enforce, and unless they are voluntary on both sides they are almost as difficult to put in place. One party simultaneously requesting an IBAN with two others, and two other IBANs to which he isn't even a party (which he wouldn't be allowed propose if his own bans passed first) is a disastrous mess that would never pass even if this thread were not already too long to attract outside attention. Anyway, if you are not interested in drama, then I suggest you just strike your OP comment and let this thread be closed and archived. Note that I'm not asking you to retract your OP comment because I think it is a personal attack; just that this thread will never be closed -- and it'll take a while to archive if unclosed -- unless the thread is seen as withdrawn. That said, I know just the guy who'd be willing to close this mess (he hates both civility final warnings and IBANs, and has blocked me more than any other admin, both times for supposedly violating IBANs, so he's hardly biased in my favour) if you'd just like it closed but don't want to formally withdraw the initial comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

* Absolutely not Alex has been the only one doing the wikistalking, and he's been at it for years. His pattern of reverting and then failing to engage in conversation isn't going to be solved by a topic or interaction ban; the problems with Alex would simply be pushed onto some other poor editor, who would get wikistalked for years as well.

Additionally, Coff is quite possibly the worst person to initiate any action in this matter. He completely (and inequitably) screwed up by nearly decapitating my editing abilities, and doesn't offer the impression of someone who can really handle this sort of thing. So not only no to Coffee, but hell no. He's fairly close to getting a complaint filed against himself.

The only person who really needs an iban here is you. If you want to unilaterally withdraw from the article I edit in, then that would be spiffy. If new articles come up that we are both interested in, we'll simply avoid reverting each other, or interacting. It isn't hard for me to do so but, as you have noted, your self control is somewhat lacking.

You don't like the drama you have created, fine: agree to a voluntary IBAN from interacting with myself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Partial support As per discussion with Hijiri, Coffee and Black Kite, I agree to the IBAN between AlextheWhovian and myself, and strike my non-agreement to such. Note that my agreement should not imply an agree to any other IBAN for anyone else, or between myself and anyone else. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Partial Support- from all this conversation has churned up, Jack Sebastian needs a couple of IBANs. Alex is not the only one doing the Wikistalking, you've been doing it as well- and there are provided diffs, so don't deny it..However, Oppose the Hijiri88 bans- they will do more bad than good. TomBarker23 (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@TomBarker23: What about the Jack-Adam IBAN proposal? You and I seem to be of one mind on Jack-Alex, but your comment is unclear whether the same should apply to remedy #3. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I hadn't fully parsed the implications of "Jack Sebastian needs a couple of IBANs". AFAICS the only evidence of "hounding of Adamstom by Jack Sebastian" was presented by me, and I don't agree (primarily because having someone's talk page on one's watchlist or intermittently checking their contribs because you know they are prone to violate policy is not "hounding" per this ArbCom decision aa and probably other precedents I wish I were aware of -- and the "quasi-hounding" in question was nothing if not highly constructive). But I don't care enough to argue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN: Proposal: AlextheWhovian warned and in/voluntarily submits to IBAN

As per the entire report and resultant discussion above, it is clear that Alexthe Whovian has stalked the subject of this complaint for years, and yet the first time that Jack Sebastian reverses AlextheWhovian's edits (and initiates discussions), its Jack who Alex contends is the one doing the hounding.

Clearly, AlextheWhovian is seeking to weaponize the AN/I process to complain about that which he has done repeatedly since becoming an editor. While Jack's behavior is problematic at times, he uses the discussion as a tool to find consensus and solutions; Alex does nothing of the sort where Jack is concerned. Therefore, while the editorial friction between Amastom and Jack can be sorted out, it is sufficiently clear that it Alex has spent years tendentiously editing and reverting Jack. Alex is in fact the crux of the problem, not Jack.

Therefore, I propose that AlextheWhovian either voluntarily submit to, or have imposed upon him an IBAN preventing interaction with Jack Sebastian in any form. Subsequent articles wherein both have interest in editing will have to be decided on a 'first come-first serve basis'.

• Support as the nominator. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd be tempted to support a 1-month TBAN for editing articles on post-2010 movies and TV shows for all 4 named users to avoid the problems with IBANs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not in favor of that because it is one of the few areas I edit in. Add to that the fact that I haven't been hounding anyone for years (which is why Alex' filing of this complaint absurd).

Oh, and someone asked where I asked Alex to stop wiki-stalking and hounding my edits? I had posted above, but here it is again:

(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.). As noted before, this is a pretty small sampling of my asking him to stop following me around, and his response has always been to simply blanking the request. I revert four of his edits on four different pages, opening discussion on the article discussion page...and I'm stalking? Right. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment if I'm not mistaken, both Jack Sebastian and AlexTheWhovian have proposed mutual IBANs between themselves. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Clarification, both Alex and myself both agree that he shouldn't interact with me. I am in complete agreement with that. I have no desire to interact with Alex, but I am not going to be sanctioned for something that I'm not guilty of. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support warning per above, but oppose one-way IBAN Sorry, Jack, but one-way IBANs are generally considered a no-go except in special cases. Those special cases usually consist of a two-way IBAN being imposed, one party attempting to game the two-way ban, and consequently being placed under both a one-way IBAN and some other sanction to prevent accidental interactions or any grey areas where the beneficiary of the one-way ban might be suspected of gaming it in revenge. See here for my reasoning on one-way IBANs and here for literally the only one-way IBAN I've ever seen implemented (there seem to be a few more currently logged at WP:RESTRICT, but nowhere near as many as the two-way ones). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience with IBANS and the like. I am saying that that I'm the one who has been hounded, and I am absolutely incensed that Alex has twisted it into me hounding him. Every time I would ask for help with him, I was told, just leave it be, and he'll go away'. He has never gone away. He just keeps pushing, and showing up on articles I edit to revert me - without discussion, and usually with some punk-ass snarky edit summary. He genuinely creeps me out, as in the 'I'm-glad-he-doesn't-know-my-real-name' sort of creepy.

And now, he has people thinking he farts sunshine? Its a bit much. Coffee already bought his line of bullshit. Who's to say others won't?- Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: You are not "the one" who has been hounded. I've been hounded too. People are about as likely to believe Alex has been hounded as they are to believe you have. This isn't to say that any of that is the case: just that proving "hounding" in cases like this where both of you have, on-wiki, demonstrated interests in the same topics going back years and both of you edit almost exclusively in those topic areas, is almost impossible. So asking for an exceptional remedy for a case that is not exceptional is not going to do anyone any good.

And you have every right to be creeped out by him in that way, but please bear in mind that the rest of us have to put up with him implying he actually does know our real names. Repeatedly. Again and again. In a manner that makes it obvious that intimidation is his primary intent. For all I know, he made up the whole off-wiki contact thing for the sole purpose of repeatedly and deliberately triggering my PTSD: at the time I first came in contact with him, this comment was visible on the same page, so all he would have had to do was Ctrl+F my sig. It would explain why he keeps bringing it up even though he knows it makes me uncomfortable, and why, when he brought it up here, he bizarrely made it look like he didn't remember having already told me about it before even though we had had a back-and-forth about it two months later.

So when you start demanding super-special treatment, it doesn't make you look good.

And no one here thinks Alex farts sunshine. Nothing User:Coffee said implied he thought that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

While I don't equate my actions as being even in the same zip code of AlextheWhovian's over-the-top harassment and system-gaming, if agreeing to an IBAN between Alex and myself means I still get to do my thing and edit in my articles and have 100% less Alex interaction, I'm ALL. IN. I don't need that sort of toxic trollhounding in my editing life.

I do however disagree with any sort of IBAN for Hijiri 88; his actions have been pretty helpful in this regard, and messing with his abilities to do so in the future seem problematic - not to mention a little petty on the part of Alex to even suggest. I likewise disagree with any sort of ban IBAN for Adamstom; he's just in need of mentoring so he can learn to not take discussions towards consensus so personally. For my part, I will endeavor to be more kind to him - we were all new and inexperienced once.

So, what do I do at this point? Swear on a stack of trout or offer up a sacrifice to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or what? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: In answer to your question what do I do at this point?: Strike your first comment in this subthread and indicate either above or immediately below it that it is withdrawn, then strike your absolute opposition to Alex's proposition in the subsection immediately above and change to partial support for the IBAN between you and Alex. Then wait for someone to close the thread and formally enshrine the remedy at WP:EDR. If the thread gets archived before that happens, it can be unarchived and closed as a procedural matter since it's unambiguous that you and Alex both support the mutual IBAN. Heck, technically either User:Coffee or User:Black Kite could close it since, as a two-way voluntary solution, WP:INVOLVED would only apply as a technicality. (They could invoke this as a precedent if they liked.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: @Black Kite: Please do not take the above pings as a request that you close this whole thread immediately. My proposal that Alex be issued a final warning (effectively put on probation) for his various abuses has thusfar received the support of User:Drmargi (an ANI regular -- I checked -- whose comment unfortunately makes her look like she only showed up here because she doesn't like Alex), and I suspect User:power~enwiki may withdraw their opposition once they've gone through all the diffs as they said they would today. User:Curly Turkey also hinted that he would probably be amenable to my proposal before I actually proposed it. User:Adamstom.97 would probably oppose it, and I have no idea where User:Mendaliv, User:Nil Einne and User:Rebbing would stand. (In case it wasn't obvious, I am pinging everyone who has commented in this thread to avoid the appearance of vote-stacking.)

While both of you have the authority to issue such a final warning based on personal judgement, and you technically have the right to ignore the several non-admins calling for such a warning and shut down the discussion based on personal judgement, I would like to implore you not to do the latter for at least another 48 hours if you are so inclined. (Alternatively, I guess you could close the subsequent IBAN discussion, log the IBAN, disregard Jack's support for the final warning as being retroactively disallowed, and allow the final warning discussion to remain open for another 48 hours.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I've indicated that I think Alex is a problem who needs to be dealt with, but I haven't looked into the details of this specific case or the proposals, so I can't say if they're warranted in this case. I hope they are, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't dislike Alex. How could I? I don't know him. What I dislike is his behavior, his approach to editing and the increasingly problematic interactions he has with editors who don't toe the line by editing according to his standards. That's quite different. Moreover, I wouldn't describe myself as an ANI regular. I pop in when something is relevant, but my participation here is sporadic. Neither has any bearing on my opinions: I'm concerned that someone who used to be a wonderful, collaborative editor has turned into an abusive, retaliatory editor who believes he is the last word on how articles should be edited and organized. His behavior has to be taken seriously by the administrative corps, and it has to stop. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course I was not saying I thought you didn't like Alex. I meant that a careless reader might get that impression. As I think I alluded to elsewhere in this thread, showing up on ANI threads specifically to undermine certain users is a form of hounding (ArbCom explicitly confirmed this when it happened to me), so without the context that you do regularly contribute to ANI discussions that don't involve Alex, your comment could make you look like a hound. I don't think you should be expected to confirm this fact every time you comment (and I personally hate having to do it every time Alex shows up somewhere), but I felt the need to do it for you anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

OH! I see what you mean now. My apologies! That's always the problem with message boards; we have no pragmatic clues to help us assign meaning. I particularly appreciate your efforts to spare me the "yeah, who are you and what do you know?" business that does seem to crop up in these discussions. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 04:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) After looking through Hijiri's diffs in more detail, I'm not terribly impressed. 4 of the 8 are to posts in this (very) long thread. Three are to User_talk:Adamstom.97#Posting_this_on_your_talk_page..., which makes neither editor look particularly good, and does show that there's bad behavior by all the parties here. I'm not sure that a "final warning" will help, but it might; I'd recommend that all the editors involved get such a warning. In addition to the already-agreed-upon IBAN, I personally feel a short-term TBAN (maybe just on Marvel-related topics) to keep these editors away from each other would help, but nobody else seems to support that. Ideally, the warnings/bans will allow for a general amnesty as far as ANI is concerned regarding previous disputes between these editors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I assume by "neither editor", you mean neither me nor Alex, as opposed to neither Adam nor Alex or neither me nor Adam. If you could elaborate on what, in my conduct on Adam's talk page, was out of line and meriting a "final warning" similar to what I proposed for Alex, that would be nice. You seem to have gone into my diffs wanting to find a "long history of bad blood" between us and been disappointed, even though I explicitly told you that was not what you would find. What you did find was me requesting Adam stop being so uncivil, and keep article talk page discussions reserved for article content (which he had not done), and Alex jumped in and made a string of ridiculous attacks against me. He has made similar attacks against me in this thread. There is no "general amnesty" for conduct on ANI -- if you make an accusation of misbehaviour here, there is if anything a greater burden than elsewhere to back your accusations up with evidence than there is elsewhere (since a comment like "you have treated me to a multitude of personal attacks" could be taken here as a direct request to the admin corps for a block). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Being followed by IBAN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I did not think to much of this [39][40], but then this happened [41]. I had checked the article first to make sure other editors were not present and had no interest in far-right German parties. It is very difficult to keep my distance when others do not.

P.S. I can not notify the parties involved. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I notified the editors involved. Kleuske (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks for IBAN violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• comment - actually, it's a question - WP:IBAN states Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other. According to the diff, there was no interaction. Please clarify where the interaction took place. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  As I told DS, Posting directly below Gilmore and taking the opposite position makes it very difficult to see it as not interacting, especially when you've never been to that page before. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, no, that's not interaction. To take a hypothetical example, if CWG had voted "Keep" on an AfD and DS had voted "Delete" just underneath, that would not be interaction. If DS had replied to CWG's "Keep" vote with "Your Keep vote is invalid because...", then that would be interaction. This clearly falls into the former category, and WP:IBAN is really clear on what is and isn't interaction. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Since when is following someone to a page you've never edited before not an IBAN vio? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Where does WP:IBAN say that it is? (Also, DS has clearly arrived there, as he says, from the (rather canvassy) comment here, on a talk page that he follows, but that's not the point here). Also, it would be nonsensical, as on that basis an editor in an IBAN with someone else could simply edit every article they'd like to keep the other one away from, and then turn round and say "hey, he followed me here! IBAN violation". Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Check the timestamps on those diffs, and repeat that last sentence with a straight face. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, you're making up your own policy here. WP:IBAN says, very clearly, "the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other". They are not interacting here. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nope. The key words there are "generally" and "avoid". Showing up 7 minutes after the other editor posts is not avoidance. Also, WP:RESTRICT particularly calls out "stalking" as part of their IBAN, regardless of whether WP:IBAN mentions it or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• And stalking is defined as "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit", not just one. Fine, I'm not going to argue it with you any further since you've clearly made your mind up, but IMHO this is not a good block. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• @SarekOfVulcan: I agree with Black Kite. There was no violation of IBAN.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Cyberpower678: you imposed the IBAN in the first place, what's your opinion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I understand your rationale, but I don't think it broke IBAN, either. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Alright. I'm not convinced I was wrong, but consensus seems to be to not block at this point. Unblocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Considering I apparently can't go a day without this spat showing up on my watchlist on a noticeboard somewhere, can we do something different all together? What would actually makes this endless conflict go away? GMG^talk 18:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A question, has this "policy" been applied to Gilmore, has he been forbidden (in effect) from posting on talk pages he has never visited before if DS has?Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The block was lifted, Slatersteven. GreenMeansGo, if common sense were being applied, there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, at least one party to this IBAN seems to lack in that area. I recall an IBAN that was enacted several years ago between Magnolia677 and Alansohn. It was specified that they could not edits in the same articles, period. Whoever got there first was the one that could edit that article, and that applied both going forward and backwards. If both had edited on a given article, whichever had edited first was allowed to continue, the other editor was effectively Tbanned. Perhaps something like that could work here. Long term, there's a better solution, but that's not for this thread. John from Idegon (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it was lifted. And I'm not sure it's even the IBAN, but it does seem like something every single day. It's getting a little silly. GMG^talk 20:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Joseph2302 has started an edit war on the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship. We achieved consensus to make a change and he is inexplicably reverting it, despite not having ever been involved in said change. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring should be reported at WP:AN/EW, not here.Tvx1 20:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

... and see section #Possible behavioral problems at 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#Tyre column irrelevant above. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Different issue, amazingly enough. Wicka wicka, it takes two to edit war. YOU are the one about to go past 3RR and if you don't want to be blocked this will stop now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

... not to mention that I don't see any consensus at that talk page for any particular change anyway, not that it would excuse the mass reverting. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I did nothing here! We agreed to make a change, I made it, and some rando rolls in and reverts for no reason. Why is this what we are spending our time on???? Let's actually improve these articles! Wicka wicka (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) All Wicka wicka does is shout at and belittle editors. See Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#"Triple header", where they're trying to claim a consensus based on 2 people's comments. This is frankly ridiculous, NPA has been breached against both me & Prisonermonkeys. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the minimum number of people required for consensus? It was a small discussion and it died out eventually, jeez. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Well the only reason I didn't input earlier is precisely because I didn't want to be in an argument with you. Read the F1 2018 talkpage, and it's full of you arguing, shouting and trying to impose your POV on everyone. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no minimum. The fact that you don't know this, shows that you're probably not ready to make a call on a consensus existing in the first place. If you can't tell, and you're involved, you need to ask an uninvolved, experienced person to judge a consensus, from a related WikiProject or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. My point was exactly that there is no minimum. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No minimum number of them is required per se. In fact most consensus is achieved trough editing. There just needs to be a broad agreement. At the moment, I see two people wanting to retain the content and two people wanting to remove it. That's no evidence of a consensus.Tvx1 20:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

At the time I made the edit, two agreed, one disagreed, and he had stopped replying. It felt over. User:Joseph2302 never involved himself in the discussion before reverting. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page hijackings by JohnMclean

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

After previously attempting to hijack Kelvin Roy, this user has now moved the page on Sylvie Roy to Kelvin Al-Kasil Roy, a biography of a person who he has a declared COI on. Can an admin clean this up? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Bizarre. Moved it back, restored the correct content, and blocked the user pending him indicating the acquisition of a clue. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Joseph2302 has started an edit war on the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship. We achieved consensus to make a change and he is inexplicably reverting it, despite not having ever been involved in said change. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring should be reported at WP:AN/EW, not here.Tvx1 20:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

... and see section #Possible behavioral problems at 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#Tyre column irrelevant above. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Different issue, amazingly enough. Wicka wicka, it takes two to edit war. YOU are the one about to go past 3RR and if you don't want to be blocked this will stop now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

... not to mention that I don't see any consensus at that talk page for any particular change anyway, not that it would excuse the mass reverting. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I did nothing here! We agreed to make a change, I made it, and some rando rolls in and reverts for no reason. Why is this what we are spending our time on???? Let's actually improve these articles! Wicka wicka (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) All Wicka wicka does is shout at and belittle editors. See Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#"Triple header", where they're trying to claim a consensus based on 2 people's comments. This is frankly ridiculous, NPA has been breached against both me & Prisonermonkeys. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the minimum number of people required for consensus? It was a small discussion and it died out eventually, jeez. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Well the only reason I didn't input earlier is precisely because I didn't want to be in an argument with you. Read the F1 2018 talkpage, and it's full of you arguing, shouting and trying to impose your POV on everyone. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no minimum. The fact that you don't know this, shows that you're probably not ready to make a call on a consensus existing in the first place. If you can't tell, and you're involved, you need to ask an uninvolved, experienced person to judge a consensus, from a related WikiProject or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. My point was exactly that there is no minimum. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No minimum number of them is required per se. In fact most consensus is achieved trough editing. There just needs to be a broad agreement. At the moment, I see two people wanting to retain the content and two people wanting to remove it. That's no evidence of a consensus.Tvx1 20:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

At the time I made the edit, two agreed, one disagreed, and he had stopped replying. It felt over. User:Joseph2302 never involved himself in the discussion before reverting. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

May I get some action on this, please? Many thanks in advance. Scr★pIron^IV 19:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP is blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Revdeled and notified. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

StuRat's editing restrictions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Comments over the last couple of days at User Talk:StuRat regarding potential breach of these editing restrictions have now resulted in this. I can't help but think this continues to be a gaming of the system. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Everyone can answer Q's on their own talk page, I just formalized the rules on mine. StuRat (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

And you have conveniently just archived the comments I referred to in the opening statement here. That just adds to the feeling that you're playing games here, sorry. What happens, for example, if you "answer" a question on your talk page that has been asked at the Ref Desk, then someone copies it over or links to it? Can't you just stick to improving articles, as I know you can do? - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I decided not to have answers to Ref Desk Q's on my talk page, which is what you wanted. I archived the ones currently there. That should be a non-issue now. If somebody copies or links to question or answers on my own talk page, then they are responsible for that, not me. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Disingenuous. You archive a shitload of comments from me and others. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

There's just no pleasing you. Had I left my answers to Ref Desk Q's, you would have objected to that. Had I removed them but left the then-orphaned comments pertaining to them, you would have objected to that. So, I archived them all, and you object to that. It's not like they have been rev-deleted, anyone can still see them. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If you resisted the repeated temptation to refactor after others have commented etc, these problems would not occur. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• The editing restrictions are "StuRat is indefinitely topic banned from the Wikipedia:Reference desks, including talk pages and would include providing answers to or commenting on reference desk questions at other locations outside of the reference desks." "Stu's Answer Desk" seems to be inviting those kinds of questions, and is clearly not in the spirit of the TB, although it may be within the literal wording of the ban. The specific problem could be fixed by adding to his "rules" one saying that he will not answer or comment on RefDesk questions (and while he's at it, take out the thing about a "private talk page", which is incorrect; although editors have fairly wide discretion over "their" talk pages, they do not belong to them), but the broader problem is that it seems as if the editor is giving the finger to the community that placed the ban, which makes me wonder if the question of an indef block shouldn't be revisited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I can make those changes. It's not about giving anyone "the finger". Indeed, I would prefer that people who don't want to participate avoid me talk page entirely, so they won't feel insulted. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• So it's ok for you to do what you want because everyone else can ignore you? Wowser, I'll just go write that libellous BLP I've been thinking about. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I was only allowed to remove your libellous BLP violation because it was on my talk page. If you put it on yours, I won't remove it, or even read it, as I have no intention of ever going there. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Stu, what is the purpose of a Wikipedia user talk page? Is it to answer questions not pertaining to Wikipedia at all? Or is it to discuss things directly relating to Wikipedia? Let me put it this way: If a blocked user tried to use their talk page like this, it would be revoked. Why is it okay for you to do it? --Tarage (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The Q's can be on Wikipedia or other topics. There's no restriction, except that I will now add a restriction that no Ref Desk Q's can be repeated there, although the purpose is quite different at the Ref Desk, about finding refs, not answers. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a personal website. The idea is to improve the encyclopaedia, not act as some ad hoc personal ref desk. The place to discuss finding refs for specific topics is on article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You completely failed to answer my question, which says quite a bit about where your mindset is. You are not here to improve Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not following your Q. Is it your contention that user talk pages are only for discussion of improvement in Wikipedia articles, and absolutely nothing else ? That would seem to ban Merry Christmas messages, etc., so I don't buy that. And Q's on my talk page will sometimes lead to improvements in Wikipedia articles, if they point out a shortcoming in one that I or others can then can fix. StuRat (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You cannot possibly be this dense. Are you here to edit articles, or are you here to answer random questions on your talk page? Both is not an answer. --Tarage (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And we start with the insults again. Is it any wonder I wish to stay on my own talk page, where I can delete such comments ? I make many improvements directly to Wikipedia articles. And if somebody asks a "random" Q on your page, what do you do, delete it, or try to find them an answer ? I did get those from time to time, including the math Q I just got called "Meeting in the park" that prompted me to formalize the rules for such Q's. StuRat (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The original title has been changed twice since I opened this section. StuRat change it first and completely misrepresented things by introducing my name as if I was the sole person concerned when, in fact, it is not just me who has been querying on his talk page. Whatever, can we please leave it alone because it is linked elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A neutral title shouldn't state an opinion as fact. You should know this. The current title is OK. StuRat (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to its current neutral title. I have added anchors for both the previous titles, so all previous links should work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I moved it inside this section, lest it be archived with the preceding section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk pages are not personal versions of Quora. "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.". StuRat, I assume you will heed this and remove all references and invitations to "Stu's Answer Desk" (both implicit and explicit)? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As long as he stays off the ref desks, why does it matter? Who's going to come to his page instead of the ref desks, outside of a few who might have his page watchlisted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added to the list of rules that improving articles is a goal. Q's and A's often point out Wikipedia shortcomings, sometimes as simple as a redirect needed so the person can find the relevant article. I added these is response to Ref Desk Q's, and will also now do so in response to Q's on my talk page. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@StuRat: Not good enough. These questions can be asked on the article's talk page, Help Desk, etc. So let me be blunt. Remove the material or I will block you for WP:GAME. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll archive it. I strongly object, however. StuRat (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This topic ban against StuRat is offensive and should be rescinded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jam Cruise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jam Cruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recommend salting this name given that it has been created and deleted some eight or so times (see [42]). Quis separabit? 18:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:KolbertBot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This bot keeps changing the links for NY Times articles that are archived from http, which works, to https which leads to a blank screen. It is really annoying having to undo this. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The bot's been blocked, apparently by request of the bot owner. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Jon Kolbert requested that I block it on IRC because of a glitch, and I'm assuming that this is the one. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm the request. I'm having trouble accessing Toolforge at the moment (to fix the issue), I will look and see to fix affected articles. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article creations by Noname83746

• Noname83746 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Saran Pack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ambition (Kodak Black song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BIFF XANNEN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is seriously leaning towards being WP:NOTHERE. Before this initial string of page creations and edits without sources, the user had vandalised other pages by including false information, a string of acts which got the user blocked for 72 hours. Since their release from the block, while I do see a few constructive edits here and there, I am a bit concerned with their continued behavior without the use of a Talk page (with the lone exception of a block appeal.) A few examples of pages they've created without sources are linked above. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I recommend considering a block if Noname83746 continues to create new inappropriate articles after getting the notice of this ANI. All their recent creations have been tagged for speedy, PROD or AfD. They have never posted to an article talk page, or responded to anything on their own talk besides the block notice. EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

On 16 December, ignoring this ANI message, the user continued to make unconstructive changes to Hot Nigga and XXXTentacion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Olsen24

Olsen24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has demonstrated a long-term pattern of edit warring, ownership behavior, and vanity editing on MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet. They have been warned and twice blocked for 3RR violations on the article. Train2104 asked me a month ago to keep an eye on the article, as he noted that it attracts a lot of contentious editing and cruft, and I have some experience removing cruft from transit-related articles. During this time, Olsen24 has replaced a number of images on the page with poor-quality photographs they took. They have completely refused to respond to messages on the article talk page or their talk page by multiple users.

Over the last three days, they have no-comment reverted three of my edits. Two of my edits were removing uncited and/or unencyclopediac information, consistent with discussions on the article talk page. The third was more of the same, plus some uncontroversial cleanup. There is no reason for them to be reverting these edits in the first place - especially uncontroversial maintenance like adding {{convert}} - and certainly not without an explanation why.

At this point, I am convinced that Olsen24 has no interest in productively working with other editors, not considering their point of view. Given that two previous blocks have not changed their behavior in the slightest, I think a much longer block is due. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Upon review of Olsen24's edit history, I note that virtually the entirety of their participation on Wikipedia has been with respect to this article, and that they participate to what might charitably be called a punctilious level of detail. There does appear to be a well-reasoned talk page consensus that the article does not need to contain unsourced assertions that specific bus numbers are out of service (presumably for a short period) while accident damage or the like is repaired. I note that Olsen24 has only ever made two talk page edits, and has not participated in the discussions at issue despite being pinged and asked for their opinion. This being the case, I tend to agree that a longer block is necessary to curtail this editor's tendency to revert consensus-based removal of unsourced trivial information. bd2412 T 03:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Two weeks ago here without resolution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please block Olsen24 indefinetly, Olsen24 keeps making disruptive edits and reverting other users edit disruptively. SportsFan007 (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)SportsFan007

Olsen24 has continued edit warring (including with SportsFan007) since I opened this AN/I thread. They have made zero attempt to communicate with other users, nor provided useful edit summaries. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Are you saying that I was edit warring? If so, I apologize. SportsFan007 (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)SportsFan007

No, not at all, that was confusing wording on my part. He is singlehandedly undoing the work of multiple editors - including you - which strikes me as edit warring on his part only. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok, thank you for clarifying!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)SportsFan007

Can someone please protect MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet from being edited from users that aren’t logged in, there have been various disruptive edits from anonymous users who aren’t logged in. SportsFan007 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)SportsFan007

• Okay, I took a look at last few days of the article history and, after I stopped screaming in horror, have locked the article (full protection) for a week (on WP:THEWRONGVERSION, as Olson24 very quickly observed on my talk page as I was in the process of writing up a notice on the article talk) so that consensus can be debated and obtained on the article talk page. I'll note that if edit-warring resumes when the protection expires, smitings may well ensue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I have doubts that the protection will work (it was full-protected for 2 weeks a few months ago), but let's see what happens. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Chas. Caltrop for the third time

• Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• First AN/I report (29 October 2017): [43]
• Second AN/I report (18 November 2017): [44]

Will someone please tell me again why this editor -- who has been reported twice in the last six weeks -- is allowed to continue making POV edits mixed in with his ultra-pedantic grammar "corrections" (which generally take normal writing and make it stilted and extremely formal)? This is an editor who does not respond to complaints, just deletes them, [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. (The one time he did respond, it was to denigrate the intelligence of the person making the complaint. [50]. As far as I can tell he has never engaged in an actual discussion with anyone, except by way of acerbic (and inaccurate) edit summaries. In fact, they did not respond to either of the previous AN/I reports,

This is not a collaborative person -- I think they rather fancy themselves as an intellectual who is above the rest of us in the hoi polloi -- and also a person who is extremely crafty about sneaking their POV into articles (they edit articles about Communist- and Nazi-related subjects).

The previous AN/I complaints got very short shrift - this editor needs to be dealt with, because he's sucking up the time and energy of other editors cleaning up after his "corrections", and when they're not fixed, they're subtly biasing our articles on those controversial subjects. (Diffs aren't really necessary: just pick a handful of edits from their contrib list, you'll get the idea.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• User notified. I am notifyling have also notified all editors who participated in the earler AN/I reports about this new one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Let me correct one statement I made above, Chas. Caltrop did reply to one other editor on his talk page, but the response was haughty and superior, as of a teacher replying to a somewhat slow child. [51] Such a response might be understandable if the comment being replied to was particularly inane, but that was not the case, it was a perfectly reasonable question, politely asked. [52] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no stricture against deleting usertalk messages, or even against being haughty a couple of times on one's own usertalk. Unless someone can provide diffs of repeated long-term problematic editing, this filing is likely to go the way of the last one. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• There is a stricture against not communicating. I've seen a number of people blocked because they never responded to anything on their user talk page. And while it sounds nice to say that being "haughty" isn't disallowed, in point of fact, if someone can't edit collaboratively, they don't belong here. Collaboration requires communication, and a willingness to engage without insulting your interlocutor. Chas. Caltrop clearly does not have that. He knows that his edits are impeccable and correct, and anyone who dares to contradict him or revert his edits is either ignored or insulted. We can do without that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

None of this is the least bit sanctionable. There's no policy against deleting usertalk messages or responding in a way you don't like. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• The haughtiness was not limited to his user talk page; it may also be seen at Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect/Archive_2#Weasel_words? in the part I collapsed, attempting to shift the focus away from his tendentiousness and incivility. The incivility may have been a passing flash, and the opaque edit summaries may be getting slightly better. That being said, I still see Chas. Caltrop as a high-maintenance editor, difficult to collaborate with, and needing a lot of cleaning up after. I agree with Beyond My Ken that any random selection of this editor’s contributions is likely to show the problems as described in this iteration of the filing. To claim otherwise would be consistent with the style of a sea lion. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

None of this is the least bit sanctionable. So far no one has provide diffs demonstrating repeated long-term problematic editing. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe BMK should re-present what was listed in the previous ANI discussions, but I found clicking through just an assortment of Chas. Caltrop's edits provided plenty of examples of edit-warring to retain the same overwrought language, sometimes with grammar errors included for measure. Regardless, the lack of appropriate edit summaries is certainly problematic. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Edit-summary remarks like "knowledge of the subject is required" do not bode well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

A reply from Chas, Caltrop

Sorry plaintiff gentleman, but I have followed the rules, thus this third circumstance. Ideological differences, rather than editorial differences, characterise your misrepresentations of my editorial participation; (they edit articles about Communist- and Nazi-related subjects) is meant to communicate which character flaws of your editorial enemy to the ANI Administrator?

Moreover, Beyond My Ken, the editorial expansion of the Horst Wessel article is about objectivity and full facts, because it is written with an in-crowd style that presumes the reader has a Nazi background; thus, the logical identification of Goebbels as the propaganda minister, which you reverted because . . . "everybody" already knows the Nazis as well as you and your cohort? As it stands, the Wikipedia article about the Nazi Stormtrooper Horst Wessel is a letter of recommendation, it even includes some job-titles ("Commander of squads and districts") he held in discharging his Nazi duties. Incidentally, squads are led by squad leaders; companies are led by commanders; you restored factual errors.

Such pro–Nazi boosterism is what you have continually protected by falsely accusing me of cheating and pov-pushing, yet, when the ANI Admin asked for specific evidence of wrong-doing, you dismiss the requested Diffs. In the Talk Page, editors already complained about the deliberate pro–Nazi tone and the deliberate osbcuring of facts; you use (forbidden) weasel words “some sources. . . .” to hide the fact that Herr Wessel was a pimp. Why? Because the reliable source is Jewish? That is not Kosher of you, Beyond My Ken, given that herein you claim victimhood when the Editorial History indicates otherwise. All of my edits are plainly explained; you must do the comparative reading; I do. The comments I made to you are factual: In the Leninism article you reinstated factual errors, in the Dunning–Kruger article you reinstated grammar errors, by twice claiming that I am pushing an opinion.

The Editorial History facts and the Wikipedia rules contradict your ANI complaint — especially when you dismiss my rights as a Wikipedia Editor, thus: Diffs aren't really necessary: just pick a handful of edits from their contrib list, you'll get the idea. Let me see if I "get it": Some Wikipedia editors are more equaler than other Wikipedia editors.

Beyond My Ken, why are you gaming the system? This statement of yours: “(Diffs aren't really necessary: just pick a handful of edits from their contrib list, you'll get the idea.)” is a gaming of the system, because you, personally, have therein unilaterally decided that, in the case of Chas. Caltrop, the Wikipedia rules of correct procedure do not apply, because you say so.

Let me know.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's no use, everyone around here already knows that I'm fanatically pro-Nazi. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, Chas, Caltrop's edit summaries are completely generic, and bear little or no relationship to the edit he's actually made. It looks to be that he just scrolls down his list of summaries and picks one almost at random. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Chas. Caltrop does make one valid point above: in his edits -- which typically consist of numerous changes -- there are good things among the bad, so one has the choice of either laboriously going through the entire article, fixing the bad stuff and leaving the good, or just reverting and losing the good. It was the second choice I've made recently, but other editors have chosen the first. My choice was based on the ratio of good-to-bad elements. Since the bad elements, in my view, outweighed the good, I chose to revert. Other methods would be appropriate in other circumstances, but the real solution is for Chas, Caltrop to be do only good stuff -- but, again in my opinion, he does the good stuff in order to sneak in some of the POV bad stuff, on the assumption that many editors will just let his edits go. Given the history of his editing, I can't countenance that decision anymore, so when I see that there's bad stuff in his edits, I'm likely to delete them, to protect the articles from his POV and from his stilted ultra-formal style of "encyclopedic" writing (which you can get a feeling for from his reply above). In short, Chas. Caltrop and Wikipedia are not a good combination, since his style does not suit that of a popular encyclopedia (it's more suited for academic papers and journals), and his insistence on pushing his POV runs counter to WP:NPOV, a basic Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

BMK, you need to provide evidence of disruption in grammar/stiltedness if you want any action in that area. What, for example, is wrong with this edit, and why do you insist on the implied criticism of "certain writers" instead of the neutral discussion of the facts? I've not checked Charles' other edits, but if this is representative, you need to step away and stop disrupting things. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Nyttend, I won't be "stepping away" and allowing an editor to harm Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that would be good and/or helpful and/or appropriate, but I feel like the response by Chas. Caltrop pretty well illustrates exactly the communication and language issues that BMK has described. BMK did also link to the two previous ANI discussions, where diffs were provided. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Their response includes battleground behavior, insinuation someone is a nazi, and that they have the truth. That's a pretty good list of reasons they shouldn't be here (Tivanir2 editing from phone.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B108:C778:61D0:EFD0:78E2:DE71 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If this was a block appeal, that reply from CC above would get me slapping a WP:NOTTHEM decline. Just sayin'. (And the more I read it the more I cringe at it. Wow.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

His allegedly stilted style doesn't worry me, but other aspects of his editing do. Take a look at this current teapot-tempest. I'd admit that I raised my opening objection in a somewhat pugnacious way, but (surprisingly) nobody seems to have objected to that. Instead, CC (a new name to me) raises rather incomprehensible objections to my pre-announced edit to the article, after reverting. (The only [apparently] clear objection is that I replaced sourced material with unsourced material. But sourcing isn't necessary in an introduction; and he cites very sloppily.) Nothing so terrible in any of this in itself -- certainly my thoroughgoing revisions have been reverted by other editors, and sometimes on reflection I've embarrassedly concluded that those editors had been right to revert. But it's worrisome if it's part of a pattern. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence of disruption in grammar/stiltedness - you might want to look at what they did to the Cultural Marxism section. They broke the section up into multiple pro-conspiracy theory headings, even though the section is intended to describe and give factual corrections to the conspiracy theory. Tell me whether a casual reader would come away from Chas' version with any comprehension of the facts. --Jobrot (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken asked me to comment. I think there is almost nothing of substance to be said about this editor and his edits that hasn't already been said. The use of vague, generic edit summaries that do not explain the actual changes being made to articles is irritating, but I suppose people cannot be blocked just for that. Chas. Caltrop should definitely be blocked if he continues to insinuate that other editors are Nazi-supporters without real evidence, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I was summoned also. It seems Chas Caltrop's edits may be generally better now than they were when I first encountered him, when they were appalling. But he definitely needs to use accurate edit summaries, and not change things like "US" to "U.S." pointlessly. zzz (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• BMK, the prior two ANI cases were useless and the one you brought here doesn't provide diffs of long-term disruption and POV editing. To get a response you are going to have to do the work and show the community clearly that there is a problem. I realize that is a lot of work, but people not doing that sort of work, is how people can persistently disrupt the project, which is what Chas. Caltrop appears to be doing. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Something sanctionable

Battleground and competence issues aside, there is this instance of 4RR. Caltrop was asked to discuss here without result. Last June, an invitation to clarify his reasoning was met with snark, and then silence on his part. In my view, these examples are enough to show this editor’s disruptive style. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sticking my oar in ... I examined some of Chas. Caltrop's recent edits yesterday after first seeing this report, and as I have said at Talk:Reinhard Gehlen#Names—where I started the section—he appears to me to have overgeneralized something we do with biographies of people who have changed their names (usually women), and missed genuine problems with the way the article was written. In the now archived discussion at Talk:Dunning-Kruger effect cited above, judging by the edit linked there, my suspicion is that he misidentified "suggest" as a weasel word, since his changes include substituting "indicate"; he also changed "One study" to "The study"; I believe these wrongly overstate the claim. I had earlier reverted a change he had made to a caption at Sino-Soviet split, making a stylistic and clarifying change of my own instead: my change. He thanked me for that edit, but reverted with the edit summary "CE; restored correct context caption". I find this a disturbingly WP:OWN edit summary, and I stand by my judgement that, especially in the caption to a group of maps, the reader needs the context of the article devoted to the dispute and how it relates to the topic of the article they are looking at, rather than one of three reiterations of the years of the dispute sans name, plus what to my eye is POV or if you prefer OR about the relationship to the article topic. In short, I think there is indeed ownership, edit warring ... and rudeness stemming from inflexibility, which includes reluctance to discuss (no participation yet at Talk:Reinhard Gehlen) and unacceptable dismissiveness when he does discuss. To be still shorter, yes, this is a problem editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep that's four reverts in a 24-hour span: 23:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC); 11:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC); 22:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC); 22:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC). I'd also note that there was reverting going on across a number of articles with Chas. Caltrop on one side and Just plain Bill and BMK on the other side, mostly on 4 December (e.g., Sino-Soviet split, Reinhard Gehlen, Dunning–Kruger effect). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of Chas edit warring, November

"Unless someone can provide diffs of repeated long-term problematic editing" -Softlavender

Multiple reverts against Chas by Beyond My Ken for unhelpful edits to the Dunning-Kruger article:

diff 1

diff 2

diff 3 (for blanking a section)

Some reverts by Just Plain Bill and Wukai on the same page:

diff 4

diff 5

Chas being reverted by Just Plain Bill on the English Usage Controversies page:

diff 6

Multiple reverts against Chas on the Leninism page:

diff 7

diff 8

Multiple reverts against Chas on the Bananana Republic page:

diff 9

diff 10

Reverts on the Newspeak page:

diff 11

Revert on the World Communism page:

diff 12.

Multiple reverts by me on the Cultural Marxism section of The Frankfurt School article:

diff 13

diff 14

diff 15

Chas being reverted multiple times on the Critical theory page by FreeKnowledgeCreator:

diff 16

diff 17

diff 18

So that was all just in the past month or so. As detailed in previous complaints many editors have come up against Chas' issues with WP:CIVILITY and their refusal to WP:TALK (just check their talk page and previous complaints to AN/I for details). It's well over 10 editors now. Chas continues to perform WP:TEND edits and go against WP:CONSENSUS whilst refusing to WP:TALK. Feel free to let the problem continue, and the number of effected editors will continue to rise whilst the quality of Wikipedia will decline. --Jobrot (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Chas has a habit of selectively deleting or muddling up content and language within left leaning articles, as well as expanding on right leaning articles. The latter is not a problem, however the former along with their continued poor treatment of other users, as well as violations of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines constitute grounds for a ban in my opinion. I don't believe they're WP:HERE to build Wikipedia up for everyone, but are instead WP:HERE to WP:SOAPBOX and subtly WP:VANDALIZE. If you don't believe that one user racking up 15-20 reverts, from multiple other users, in a single month, with little to no interaction on talk pages, is problematic, then I don't think you understand or respect Wikipedia as a collaborative project. It's voluntary, let's not make it a WP:BATTLEGROUND or a chore for people. --Jobrot (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support full ban for continuous violations of WP:TEND, WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG and WP:CONSENSUS - not to mention their penchant for WP:EDITWARRING. --Jobrot (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just leaving this here for reference... WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note: Reports for edit-warring belong at WP:ANEW. I don't see any edit-warring warnings on Chas. Caltrop's usertalk since July 2016. Another note: Issues reagrding article content need to be discussed on the talkpage of the article (not on usertalk), so that all interested editors can respond and consensus can be reached or affirmed. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a notification on their talk page right now. Not to mention it being admitted on their talk page, or here where they're goading another user into reporting them - that interaction ending with Chas going to Sino-Soviet split and doing some spite edits because they believe it will annoy FreeKnowledgeCreator. Or here in another (4th) AN/I back in june specifically about edit warring. A WP:TEND editor will avoid WP:3RR, the smart thing to do for someone who enjoys WP:EDITWARRING is exactly what Chas does - commit multiple edit wars across multiple pages consistently re-instating content that has been rebuffed on talk, in descriptions and sometimes even on Chas' own talk page... at best users will find themselves with a terse pugnacious message violating WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL and THAT is the problem. Negative action and no repercussions. A problem you're apparently not seeing despite the overwhelming evidence.

Unless you believe that WP:CIVIL should be dropped, and that users SHOULD be seeing 15-20 reverts from multiple Wikipedians across multiple pages a month? Unless you believe goading and bullying is appropriate? Or that edit summaries should all repeat? Or that talk pages should be ignored, and WP:TPG shouldn't be followed? Or that a user should be allowed to soapbox by edit warring articles of a specific political bent they don't share? What level of bad behaviour is required for someone like you to accept that there has been a long term problem here and it has been completely ignored? - I mean FOUR AN/I reports? FOUR!

Does the claim of being here for WP:CE really hold that much weight? In the face of all this bad behaviour and the evidence they're a bad actor?! Come off it, bullying, lack of communication, editwarring, WP:TEND - admit who's the problem and let's move on. This has been on going for their whole time here. It's ridiculous. If you can't learn the basics of civil collaboration by now you simply shouldn't be here (or aren't WP:HERE for the right reasons). So yes, there is an edit warring issue, and this user does have long term behaviour issues that effect other users, shown with diffs, that violate several areas of Wikipedia policy. They need to be banned. It's that simple. Look at the number of users who are having problems with this one user, and let that help you decide. There's a reason this user attracts this much trouble - and it's no ones fault but their own... and frankly it should have been dealt with a while ago. --Jobrot (talk)

The EW warning was not placed on the user's talk page until after this ANI thread was opened. If you can provide WP:DIFFs demonstrating WP:TPG violations and WP:CIVIL violations, please do. If you merely disagree with their content edits, then take that to article talk. (That is generally the problem with most of these kinds of disputes -- they are content disputes that people attempt to prosecute on usertalk instead of article talk.) Also, please note that edits by others do not substantiate disruptive editing; only edits by the user do that. In the ANI you linked to, the opining administrator determined that "All parties are just as guilty of edit warring." Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I literally just linked you to Chas goading another user, attempting to bait people into reporting him. Chas shows utter destain for WP:GOODFAITH just as other users have reported. There's more on their talk page. As for violations of WP:TALK - every single post in non-article space Chas has ever made, has violated WP:TPG because Chas is literally been so stubborn and set in their ways as to have never bothered to learn how to interact on talk pages properly (etiquette, indentation and formatting). In a whole year of being here - they've never bothered. Here they are a year later still being warned about this.

Anyways Softlavender first you demanded diffs proving long-term problematic edits - which I provided - and now you're shifting the goal posts to demanding diffs showing a lack of WP:CIVILITY and violations of WP:TPG (when I've given you links, and those things are fairly obvious); I think the problem is that you specifically are ignoring this as a behavioural problem and trying to reframe it as a content issue (across this many pages? this many users? Really?). I think you need to WP:LISTEN to what all these editors above and previously have been saying, show some WP:GOODFAITH towards them for once rather than continuing on with your one sided devil's advocate program, which is starting to look like straight up bias. When is a problem user a problem user? Right now - and with your work it looks like they will still be in the future too! --Jobrot (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not shifted goalposts. You failed to provide a single WP:DIFF of Chas. Caltrop editing disruptively or violating policy, which I have requested from the very beginning. You have provided other editors' diffs, and links to a couple of threads, but no WP:DIFFs of Chas Caltrop editing disruptively or violating policy. Softlavender (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So you don't think that an editor being reverted 15-20 times in a single month (but lots of other editors) constitutes "problematic editing" on their part? Your phrase. Not mine. Personally, that scenario sounds pretty damn problematic to me. Particularly for the editors doing all that clean up work. Which is my point when I said you have to give THEM WP:GOODFAITH TOO! --Jobrot (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Various infringements

On top of the previous diffs of edit warring

Diff Chas admits to edit warring "our war of reverts was for nought."

Diff 1RR arbitration violation resulting in a hour 24 block.

Diff of FreeKnowledgeCreator trying start a conversation with Chas about their use of an IP to get around WP:3RR. No reply. FreeKnowledgeCreator follows up on Chas' talk page. No reply.

Diff Zzz complaining about Chas edit warring. No reply.

• Reports of edit-warring (including logged-out; although the user should be TP-warned with the {{subst:uw-login}} template) belong at WP:ANEW, not at ANI. Editors are not required to reply to talkpage posts, so that is not sanctionable. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It indicates WP:TEND. To quote the relevant headings One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors, One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages and One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject. --Jobrot (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A more general quote from WP:TEND "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." --Jobrot (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

People trying to open discussions with Chas

Diff Rhododendrites tries to get Chas to talk to TonyTheTiger over an issue. No reply.

Diff FreeKnowledgeCreator once again trying to get Chas on a talk page. No reply.

Diff FreeKnowledgeCreator once again (different page). No reply

Diff MWAK on Chas' talk page. No reply.

• Editors are not required to reply on their talkpages, and article-talk consensus does not require every editor's participation for a consensus to be reached. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

See previous reply RE:WP:TEND but also, in the case of the Frankfurt School page Chas did ignore consensus. You're going into bat very hard for this guy, who I believe is an obvious WP:TEND. --Jobrot (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Diff, in which Just plain Bill asks for specifics on what Chas variously called "OR-opinion-text", "OR opinions", "OR text" and "unsourced OR text" (yes, multiple reverts) in what I* wrote. Almost two weeks have gone by so far, with no response.

(*Yes, me. So I may not be disinterested here. On the same talk page, and before J p Bill popped the question, Chas huffed and puffed at "the editor who 're-wrote' facts to his taste". I suppose that this refers to me; but while I find it easy to infer indignation from his comments, I have trouble inferring much else from them.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Users complaining of lack of proper edit summaries (obfuscation)

Diff Johnbod complaining about Chas' lack of proper edit summaries. No reply.

Diff Wukai complaining about Chas' lack of proper edit summaries. No reply.

Diff Zzz complaining about Chas' lack of proper edit summaries. No reply.

Diff FreeKnowledgeCreator complaining about Chas' lack of proper edit summaries. No reply.

Diff Myself complaining about Chas' lack of proper edit summaries. No reply.

• The editor does use edit summaries, as can be seen in his contributions: [53]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So what's your explanation for why these other editors are finding that Chas' edit summaries vs actual edits don't line up? To quote FreeKnowledgeCreator from the above diff: If your changes are disputed, then you need to discuss them on the talk page. Note that "Clean up; grammar, flow, npov" is not an appropriate edit summary when you are restoring disputed edits - but it is what I'd expect from a WP:TEND editor. --Jobrot (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You said "lack of edit summaries" all five times. He does use edit summaries, so there is no lack of edit summaries. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, you're right. I have edited the entries accordingly so they match the section heading "lack of proper edit summaries". --Jobrot (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Chas. Caltrop being openly rude to other users and violating WP:CIVIL/WP:TALK

Diff Chas trying to bait FreeKnowledgeCreator into an argument, violating goodfaith.

Diff Again, same user.

Diff Mark Marathon tries to warn Chas that they're coming close to tendentious editing, and showing all the signs of WP:WIKIHOUNDING.

Diff Just Plain Bill tries to get Chas' attention for a talk page discussion, gets told that he is out of Chas' league, and that The "Harvard" of the mid west has failed him. but thanks him for providing entertainment (belittling/bullying).

Diff Sarcasm about having missed another users Ph.D graduation (ie. calling them dumb).

Diff Chas being sarcastic to other users concerns, accuses them of "hunting Pawsetinians" [hunting Palestinians]. Basically trying to start a fight.

Do you have enough diffs on this issue yet Softlavender? --Jobrot (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, that's four instances of being snide on article talk (all but one of which precede the article-talk warning given by non-admin Mark Marathon). Users have considerable leeway in how they respond on their own talk page, so that diff doesn't really apply (and is yet another example of why content issues should never go to usertalk). In terms of the four article-talk diffs, I think they merit an administrative warning on the user's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll just paste that quote again from WP:TEND in case you missed it- "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." (wow look at all those diffs of all those repetitive reverts up there, 15-20 in a single month did someone say?) - But this is REALLY going to be a measure of just how WP:UNCIVIL someone can be, along with the complete irrelevance of the WP:TPG (let alone bothering with talk pages). I'm kinda shocked by AN/I's lack of interest in protecting Wikipedia from WP:TEND editing, especially considering how many editors have complained about this one editor's behaviour. With non-admin users like Wukai (Diff) and Mark Marathon (Diff) almost trying to protect other editors where AN/I apparently will not. Guess that's the way this project is going. Sad. --Jobrot (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender, please stop bending over backwards in your attempt to not see the problem here. Your contributions to this discussion have all been hand-waving dismissals of evidence and observations by veteran editors. It makes it appear that you either are an apologst for Chas. Calthrop, or that you have some sort of animus against Jobrot, and it's overall really not helpul. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• What he said. It's as if you've staked out a position at the start and are utterly unwilling to move from that. --Calton | Talk 02:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Classic case of "won't be proven wrong". TIP: it's okay to think one thing, get evidence for another, and change your mind. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• The case has been laid out and evidence presented as to Chas. Calthrop. I have to agree with BMK. Kierzek (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• This case caught my eye because of its length, age, and the user name (from Day of the Jackal). Usually people come here to complain about talk page WP:BLUDGEONing but here we have a user who does the opposite. That can be equally corrosive. I don't know the remedy. If he is not contributing to the project, or a net negative, then he should go. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Chas. Caltrop is, however, well aware of this thread. Obviously he posted here once, but in addition to that, he was copying the thread onto his talk page, up until Jytdog's comment. Once specific diffs were posted here illustrating his behavior, he stopped copying the discussion over. So the choice not to post here was a deliberate decision, as was the choice to present on his talk page only a truncated portion of the discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Ne0Freedom

• Ne0Freedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tis user came ot my notice by repeatedly reverting my removal of inappropriate WP:SYN from Food irradiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His explanation on my Talk, in which he considers he demonstrated the validity of this content, is... special.

Example: "Codex Alimentarius' Standards are NOT based on legitimate Science, they are based on Corporate funded(bankrolled) science, skewed for the purpose of profitability ...Just like how the charlatans of Human Global Warming theory sell that ocean acidification is due to Carbon Dioxide"

WP:RSN finds the edit to be unsupported by the cited source.

There's a DS notice on his Talk, which refers to this: [54].

So that is two iterations of egregious WP:FRINGE advocacy, one pushing the ludicrous conspiracy theories around HAARP and so on, and one pushing anti-science conspiracies against biotech, specifically including GMOs.

He's also reverting Doc James here: [55].

I think we have a crank on our hands. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• On the narrow behavioral matter, he's edit warring for which he's never been warned. I have just done so, so the ball is again in his court. If he abandons his campaign based on that warning, then we'll be done. If he persists, we have grounds for a block. --Jayron32 16:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The references ([56] and [57]) should be good enough for citing "food advocacy groups consider labeling irradiated food raw as misleading". --Ne0 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not the correct place to litigate the validity of sources or the inclusion of article text. You should develop a consensus using the article talk page or at WP:RSN. This noticeboard is on the narrow topic of the behavior of editors. You've now been warned to not edit war. Please proceed with discussions and allow consensus to develop one way or another before proceeding, and also allow for the possibility that consensus may go against you. --Jayron32 17:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I see the old saw that usernames containing Truth and Freedom, among others, are usually not here for encyclopedia building still holds true. Blackmane (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:CGTW#15 strikes again! Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Also WP:OWB #72. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I need to save these links! Blackmane (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's odd that no one has created user:IamaPOVpushingSPA yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Shhh, don't give them ideas! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I started the discussion on the talk page of the irradiation article as I reverted JzG for other reasons, but found no way to inform JzG as his talk page is blocked. Not looking for any help, just attempting to notify him of the change.2602:304:415C:56C9:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Your “reasons” failed to account for the fact that the paragraph is not supported by the source, notwithstanding the fact that the source is inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

So, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Organic_consumers_association, this IP is almost certainly Ne0, and has twice reverted the content back in despite the fact that, even if the source were usable, the source does not support te content. Time for sprot on the article and some bannination, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF and whatnot, but this really does look like a case of 'oh no, my account is being watched on this topic! I know, I just won't sign in, nobody will know it's me!' - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Especialyl given the hysterically conspiracist tone of both the account and the IP. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The Ip is not neo, it is me, I am sick of the bullying and name calling. I gave plenty of reasons for my reversion and was simply being polite and trying to contact you as you are so arrogant as to have a block on talk page to stop "lowlife IPs" like me. The bad grammer was due to using speech to text. This JzG|Guy person has acted like a bully on all occasions. I wish someone would write him up. I have been maintaining the Irradiation page for over 5 years. I am not a conspiracy theorist as is clearly evident by my changes, all the work I have done to moderate the article from crazies like you and neo is lost when you remove content that explains why Neo's perspective is biased. Show some respect. By the way the consensus is that you were wrong, that the deletion of the whole section was wrong. Before you delete READ. THe paragraph WAS supported by bouth the first second, and the source you oviously failed to read being the third. 2602:304:415C:56C9:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Your "reasons" did not address the removal. The paragraph in question stated a tendentious and evidentially unsupported opinion as fact, and made a generalised statement about the views of a class of group based on primary reference to a member of the class, being an activist group with a long history of backing anti-science propaganda. WP:RSN agreed the content was problematic. Reinserting it was equally problematic. Your riposte is that you stated a reason for reversion, albeit that the reason did not address the reason for removal and ran counter to the RSN discussion. And based on that, everybody who disagrees with you is the problem. And do you not think we might have seen this before? Guy (Help!) 00:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Except nothing you said is true. Clearly you never even read what I wrote as you called me a conspiracy theorist on this very page. I gave you a few reasons why you shouldn't revert and plenty of Reason To indicate that I wasn't the same person as Mister freedom. If you had just responded to my comments instead of reverting starting another you would have found many other reasons as well. I just listed the reasons that I thought were the most compelling as I do not want to spend my whole day on issues like this. But let's go through the things that you did wrong. First you changed the content of an article that you clearly know nothing about. Second you initiated and edit war with mr. freedom. It is you who should have gotten the warning about the edit War not him. He reverted your change twice, and you made the change three times. You're the one who should have reached out to him to solve this issue but instead he got tagged and tried resolving it with you. This makes you was guilty party not him. Second you took the question to a form that specifically deals with the credibility of citations to resolve a question that did not fully hinge on credibility of citations. Then you proceeded to spoon-feed them your arguments for removing the content without ever indicating the full content removed or that it was well cited in an academic Journal. There are two problems here one is that you lied the second one is more complicated as this page only deals with determining the reliability of citations they had a vested interest in siding with you as your argument was that the citation (which was really only one of three citations) was invalid. As you know picking a group of people that you know will side with you and having them make a decision is called meat puppetry. There are plenty of other issues involved in Wikipedia and the content of your change other than the reliability of citations and selecting group that only cares about that does not represent truthfully what should be done in an article. Next when I made all efforts to communicate with you despite how difficult it was you chose to not read anything I wrote and do a gut revert. You started a new edit War. Not only that you claimed that I was obviously a conspiracy theorist, showing that all the effort I I went to to contact you didn't matter. You did not respond to my discussion which was obviously not written by a conspiracy theorist (but clearly a person who wanted to educate those who believe in such conspiracies) instead you just called me one and did your revert without any investigation. The most offencive of obviously being your comment I am responding to now. You had previously judged me as incompetent even though I am the one who's been keeping the peace on that page for over 5 years. My opinion is part of the consensus for this page. Any proposals for changes to pages should be done on the talk page of those pages so the real experts can shoot you down if they want to. If you are to use your forum for bad citations all you should do is send them a link to the section in question and have them read it and let the rest of the discussion be on the talk page of the article and question. That way you avoid all this meat puppetry.

Now that I said the objective truth now I'm going to rant. Do you know why that citation is there in the first place? The one that you questioned? It is there because a long time ago someone insisted that the previous content was weasel worded. Which was true as It generally called out some groups as opposing irradiation on these grounds. I am the one who wrote the citation in question. Who better to indicate that some people oppose this other than the people who are opposing it themselves. The content was previously deleted because of these weasel words by someone like you. I am sick of people like you coming in and making a mess and expecting people like me to do the good work of cleaning it up. You know in 5 years no one has added any significant content to this article. People have deleted and deleted and deleted. I have done my best to reformat and clean up. You did more dammage to this article in these few days then anyone else other than me benefited this article in 5 years. You delete a large amount of content because a small amount offends you and assume that somebody else will clean it up if it's worthwhile. That is like sending a homeless man out of a soup kitchen because he sick, and hoping that some random person on the street, other than you who noticed the problem, will take him to the hospital. Absolutely absurd. Wikipedia needs more people who add content not who remove it because of their specific desires. I challenge you to apologise and admit your faults.67.162.25.59 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Holy WP:WALLOFTEXT, Batman. But what I can get out of said wall (beyond a case of eye-strain) is the smell of WP:OWN in the morning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR - I agree with The Bushranger here. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 01:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You have dismissed my comments without reading them every single time. I wrote a long series of comments because every time I get a response from anyone it says my reasoning is incomplete. Stop judging things before you read them this is not about me claiming ownership of the article it's about me claiming that the article should be managed by the people who actually understand the content. And not bullied by somebody with a specific policy agenda who by the way has their facts 100% wrong according to Scientific consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B113:FFCD:22BE:C3E:AD55:655 (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"the article should be managed by the people who actually understand the content" - which includes you, so yes, you are claiming ownership. And regardless of that, WP:OWN can refer to a group instead of just an individual. You are literally saying that 'people who don't understand the content should not be allowed to edit the article' - that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia edits by consensus established through verifiable information from reliable sources, and emphasises verifiability over truth. We do not allow specific people or groups to control article content; any editor in good standing may edit any article. If things have been "deleted and deleted and deleted" and "no one has added any significant content to the article", perhaps they aren't "damaging" the article, perhaps it's because the content was in fact inappropriate. If multiple editors are making changes in one direction to the article, and you alone are standing against them, it's worth at least considering if, possibly, they, and not you, are the ones in the right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Rural Lyra/86.179.200.63 disruptive editing on Congressional Black Caucus

An editor going by User:Rural Lyra and User:86.179.200.63 has been edit-warring over an extended period of time on the Congressional Black Caucus article to describe the organisation as racist] without providing much in the way of sourcing. I believe describing an organisation with a small, identifiable membership as racist without any citations to back this up is a violation of the BLP policy and have made this clear to them. Nevertheless, they persist in readding the content without discussion or so much as leaving edit summaries, see [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] going back to September. When the page was semi-protected to prevent the disruptive editing from their IP address they simply switched back to the Rural Lyra account and readded the content anyway. Their talk pages show they have been made aware of concerns about their edits to other articles and have simply ignored them entirely. In my opinion, it is becoming clear that this user is engaging in disruption and POV-pushing and has shown no interest in discussing their behaviour. Can anything be done about this? --RevivesDarks (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this user for a while. They're not a high edit user and nor is there really a pattern to their edits as the subjects are all over the place. A lot of then on Ireland but not all. However I believe they're WP:NOTHERE as their edits in general are not helping the encyclopaedia. In fact I'd go as far as to call their edits disruptive (adding spaces where they're not needed, removing sourced information, refusing to communicate or use edit summaries, the persistent editing on the CBC etc.) I'd recommend a block, this user isn't worth our time. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Rural Lyra described the organisation as a racial political organization, not racist; "Racist ban on white membership" was more accurate than a section about "white membership" which apparently doesn't exist; sourced content was added by Rural Lyra and removed by RevivesDarks. Peter James (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Image on Emily Beecham

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Emily Beecham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. User:Footsmudge has posted to Talk:Emily Beecham#Explanation by Emily Beecham saying that she is the actress in question, and that the current image on the page was taken when she was suffering from an allergy or auto immune disorder, which was impacting her career. That, to me, made it a WP:BLP issue. She uploaded a different image File:Emily Beecham at The British Independent Film Awards 2017.jpg that was verified by OTRS. So I replaced the first image with the second with the comment Replacing per talk page and WP:BLP, please don't revert without extensive discussion, and explained in more detail on the talk page. User:Davey2010 reverted, saying RV as no consensus for the change - Start an RFC if you disagree. (TW). Now here I was pretty sure that WP:BLP was clear that I shouldn't discuss and wait for an RFC: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The next part says something about blocking; but I think that part can be avoided, Davey is trying to do the right thing. As am I. So, an admin should tell us which of us will be blocked if this turns into an edit war, so we can avoid the edit war. --GRuban (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately many editors (and I believe the subject herself) had constantly tried changing the image a few months ago .... after a lot of discussions it all moved towards RFCs ...., As I said on the talkpage I completely sympathise with her but IMHO we shouldn't change an image just because the subject doesn't like it, That being said the image itself isn't great but at present it's better than what's been uploaded,

I absolutely agree with GRuban every editor (myself included) on the talkpage has been trying to do the right thing, if I'm being blatantly honest when she made the post today I wanted to say "right f it" but then it would mean all of the discussions would have been for nothing and that this could set a precedent for any subject to have any image they like which is why I chose not to change it (and revert GRuban), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I really think that a picture of a healthy LP should be preferred to a picture of an ill LP right at the top of the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with the image recently uploaded (the previous one approved by Ms Beecham wasn't great, but that one's fine). Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Insisting on a picture that a subject seriously dislikes is guaranteed to make us look petty and abusive, especially after the less than helpful interaction with the editor who took the photo. We've provided information on how to upload a better image and release it, in the mean time, I have removed the image. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and added the image back [64], I will add however atleast on this laptop the image looks awful (and as far as I'm aware the colour on this laptop is fine), Anyway added back, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've made some adjustments to the image to improve its visibility, and to crop it in to the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why she likes the second image better, it's not nearly as good a presentation of her as the first is, illness or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it looks pretty good. She probably sees things in it that we don't. And it could be a lot worse. For example, the wretched image of Carmen Electra they once used as the main picture. File:Carmen Electra cropped 2.jpg ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

At least nobody has yet to suggest that personally making a sketch of someone constitutes a "free replacement image". (I hope.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly what you're talking about, but the article on David Galula used to have a editor-made sketch of the subject in the infobox [65], before it was removed, not without difficulty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, folks! An AN/I section settled quickly, no one blocked, everyone happy. It's like a season of miracles or something... --GRuban (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Saiph121, take 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Saiph121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My previous post here was archived without discussion.[66]

Since then, Saiph has returned to edit warring to restore a category.

The consensus against the category seems to have been firmly established on the talk page,[67] as confirmed by the DRN [68][69]

I tried to clarify a few times.[70][71]

Since then, they have restored the category repeatedly.[72][73][74] - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. SummerPhDv2.0, please be a bit more discerning when using warning templates as Saiph's edits can be considered disruptive but not vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User creating only Non-notable pages.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User GodwinCollins is creating non-notable bio page. Articles are all stubs. Godwin's talk page shows they have made many articles that have been tagged with G12 and A7 person. In [[75]] Edit User adds content that they say makes the person notable(it didn't). Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@LakesideMiners: I haven't looked at any of the editor's other page creations, but teh example you gave, Oleka K. Udeala, was declined as a G7 by an administrator, yet you tagged it again on the same basis. The article did contain a claim of notability, and I've just finished rewriting and expanding it. Based on that example, your standards are too high; remember, speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases, and the bar is quite low for claims of significance to rule out speedy deletion for not having one. (I'm also grateful to editors who write up topics from parts of the world under-represented on Wikipedia, and Nigerian academics qualify.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concern about recent edits at Stephen Henderson

Looking at the edit history of Stephen Henderson (journalist), I've been noticing very similar IP addresses consistently introducing unsourced claims that he was fired for sexual misconduct. I think that these IP addresses are linked to a single disruptive editor. EMachine03 (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Have semi-protected the article and rev-deleted some of the unsourced claims. Very likely this is the same editor using multiple IPs. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

G6 deletions of draft namespace redirects

A bunch of draft namespace redirects have been deleted by RickinBaltimore with "G6 met, drafts that have moved to mainspace" for the reason, including Draft:My Friends From Afar (TV series) and Draft:My Friends From Afar (TV Series). However, those two redirected to Draft:My Friends From Afar, which still has not been become an article yet. Also, there are incoming links to those two titles. Another administrator will need to re-consider the G6 deletions and find out who actually tagged the redirects for deletion. Then both redirects can be undeleted. 24.205.131.55 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

...Or, you can just... re-create them.... if they're needed. What's the big deal? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the incoming links from articles to draft-space, per WP:LINKDD. -- Begoon 04:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, there should not be links from mainspace to draftspace. Nothing wrong with the deletions as far as I can see - while the log entry may not be entirely accurate, the criteria is right; there's no reason I can see to keep draftspace redirects. ansh666 04:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the log entry might refer to the redirect that's presently at My Friends From Afar. Interestingly, the history at that title suggests that Draft:My Friends From Afar is the product of a cut-and-paste move of the history in mainspace. While the page creator of both is the same, there are multiple editors with what appear to be nontrivial contribs to each page. A histmerge may be required. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I know my wording could have been better in my tagging of the pages, however the drafts in questions were merely redirects to other pages. Of the the drafts in question, the edits came out to be creating other redirects to each other, or the adding of the deletion tag. Unless I missed something (and I haven't had coffee yet, I may have), there doesn't look like anything really to restore. As stated above, there is an article for the subject in draftspace currently as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's anything incorrect here. If anything, there ought to be a criterion for speedy deletion that applies here. There's no serious value to intra-draftspace redirects that I'm aware of, certainly not as draftspace is intended to be used or is currently used. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

WCCO-TV

Names of non-notable people (i.e. those without Wikipedia articles) keep showing up at WCCO-TV. I remove them, but my edits keep getting reverted. [76] [77] [78] [79] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've reverted the latest IP edit since it appears contrary to the consensus established on the article's talk page. If the IP(s) keeps coming back, then perhaps the best thing to do would be to request that the article be protected, only this time for an longer period of time. I doubt the IP(s) are going to be willing to discuss things here, and blocking (in my opinion) is going to have little impact if this is just the same person jumping from one IP to another. The best way to probably stop any further disruption seems to be page protections. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As a footnote, bear in mind that some of them may be notable, and just don't have a Wikipedia article yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

And while those entries would require notability, the non-article ones seem to be sourced properly, so I don't understand the OP's complaint. (Although if it's true that talk page consensus is to leave them out, that's another story.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVS (not the talk pages of stations) has had a pretty inflexible 'blue links list them, red linkers stay out' listing of station personalities, even with several sources. I say I have no issue with individuals without articles being listed in these articles with sources and no real need for an article (which we have in this case), but I'm not an admin and I can't make the call. Nate • (chatter) 10:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute, so it's not really an admin's call as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Can I re-submit the article to recovery when finding new sources?

I found new sources in the Bloomberg L.P. [80] Haaretz [81] and Reader's Digest [82], Lonely Planet [83] - scanned pages [84], [85], but the nomination for restoration was already closed and I was blocked for multiple placement. How can I re-discuss the matter with the new sources? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What article is this regarding? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Westarctica --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest you try to make a section for it in the Travis McHenry article. If your sources are on-topic WP:RS, it may help that article survive deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Or see if you can make it "stick" at List of micronations. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll do it there, but I wanted to restore a separate article.--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I´m sceptical that´s a good idea, but try talking to user:Sandstein like it says at your redlink. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not likely to go over well if you just try to recreate the article, as it's been deleted by discussion and you argued your way into a block by posting about it at several inappropriate places. But if you want to try, you could create a draft in your sandbox or at Draft:Grand Duchy of Westarctica and submit it through articles for creation. Whatever happens, I suggest you wait for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis McHenry to resolve, because if it's found that the creator of this micronation is not notable for the encyclopedia then it's very unlikely that the micronation itself is notable. If that's the case then adding some basic information to the list of micronations is all that's likely to ever survive deletion. Don't take it personally, some topics are just not notable, and Wikipedia can't write about everything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Promotion of Brent Alden, False Alarm band, rangeblock needed

Somebody in Southern California using the range Special:Contributions/2600:1:B157:E2D5:0:0:0:0/41 has been persistently promoting the punk band False Alarm, making them out to be more important and promoting their recent work.[86] The promotion includes band member Brent Alden's proposed cure for impotency.[87] This person has also put herself forward as a job applicant for the magazines Rolling Stone and The New Yorker,[88][89] which demonstrates serious competency problems. Many warnings have been issued but she has offered no reply. She's been blocked a handful of times,[90][91][92][93] but the disruption continues. I think we need a rangeblock. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a very wide range, and there would be a fair amount of collateral damage.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a wide range. Can the range be tightened or broken up into chunks? Below is a list of involved IPs. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this will be an ongoing issue when it comes to IPv6 addresses. IPv6 addressing resolves a lot of issues and makes many things easier than with IPv4 on the internet in general, but some of the changes will make things harder for us when it comes to blocking ranges and minimizing collateral damage. One of which being the fact that /64 ranges are typically allocated to the user (where whole IPv4 addresses were allocated to them); this means (at least until things change over time) that less of the total IP is allocated to the network than IPv4, making very small changes to the range make a very huge impact on the number of users that are affected. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• 2600:1:B150:BB44:EFF1:F46A:F903:1297 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B103:E1F5:9468:2EF2:5EC:464D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B103:E1F5:7009:6C8:3518:5D2A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B157:7B03:55E6:729C:34E5:DCF1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B15D:5FA1:8095:DC1E:FE76:B980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B105:7A1:BBB9:7E30:7BC1:8C50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B145:9BF5:872E:9BC:1883:605D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B115:311E:7F74:83B4:C317:377D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B157:E2D5:935E:59E:D123:D0EC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B142:6F44:5F6D:15A2:83A6:611 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B103:93E0:4AE6:C7A8:756A:ADFD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B149:4F7E:C64C:5D63:8518:6FF5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B100:948:D8D4:F07D:5289:11BC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B150:B87C:19D2:8151:C534:D13B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B110:9B05:312D:D10E:62D0:329A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B110:9B05:FE9D:C8FB:2C57:21B7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B106:371A:5886:B911:D2F0:CBCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B147:A8C4:F0FF:9D61:BE93:162D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B152:C9F4:F6C:7B82:224E:577D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B10A:BCAB:306:E4F9:C247:A013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B151:574A:5AAC:71D0:B974:AC16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B05D:AD0:9E6B:A445:12D6:EA02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.88.81.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I think we need an edit filter to prevent IPs from adding the words False Alarm (capitalised). This has little potential for collateral damage. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea, but edit filters take processing overhead, and the implementation of filters is intentionally limited to critical problems. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Map that is not in the author's book and attributing it to that author in an article ...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First time here.

An editor keeps putting a map that is not in the author's book and attributing it to that author in an article. The editor says his map is on "page 26", but I found the 1996/7 book, and on page 26-27 is map 1.3 which is similar to File:Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png as I stated on the Talk page, while doing WP:BRD. His map is not in the book, and the author says near the top of page 47 that "the West" cannot be found on a map. Seems like wp:OR and maybe not NPOV, or more, but I am new to this. Am I missing something? Where do I go, if not here, to resolve this/these issue(s)? I will attempt to notify the involved editors to the section on that Talkpage, on their Talkpages. X1\ (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@X1/:Your first time here, so I'm sure you're not aware that Administrators do not adjudicate content disputes, which this appears to be, and this page is only for notification of behavioral problems, which this has not (at least as of yet) turned into. Please continue to discuss the issue on the article talk page and try to reach a WP:CONSENSUS with other editors. If that's not possible, try WP:Dispute resolution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@X1\: Sorry, wrong slash in ping, re-pinging. See previous edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pocketthis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

User has repeatedly been uncivil on Talk:DUI California, as well as his user talk page. I have copypasted the conversation on his talk page to User:MitchG74/ANI report data, and the discussion on the article talk page is still there. MitchG74 00:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been the target of most of their incivility, and I'm not sure why. Their talk page comments seem to indicate that they believe they own the article and have some sort of right of first refusal to any changes to that article. I did engage them in discussion on the article talk page, but they responded with "The name of the article stays AS IS. I'll delete it before I'll change the name. End of discussion" which led me to open up a formal move request to get wider comment as the article title is clearly inappropriate. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The OP is advised to do some serious reading up on the Wikipedia:Five pillars of editing here. Especially the third one. Heiro 01:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I know you're new here, but you can preserve a page in time by using a WP:DIFF from the history. In this case this one, without needing to make a subpage. SQL^{Query me!} 02:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @SQL: MitchG74 02:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow this is a doozie. Pocketthis needs to calm the hell down and understand points about civility and article ownership. The fact that he is refusing to engage here is troubling. --Tarage (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This is another doozy. Granted, he can be polite, helpful, and enthusiastic, but he can also go completely off the rails - as here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah someone needs to say something in such a way that he can't just shrug it off. This sort of behavior is not okay. --Tarage (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised no one has opened a case before this, seeing as the discussion has been going on for almost a day now. Should I ping an admin, or is it normal for an ANI case to take this long? It's my first time here, so I'm kind of a noob. MitchG74 02:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pocketthis' behavior on that talk page is among the very worst cases of OWNership that I've ever seen, combined with seriously bad WP:IDHT behavior. Right now, I'd support a trout, but if he doesn't change his attitude real fast, a harsher sanction would be appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• And MitchG74: sometimes things can take a while to crystalize on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've dropped a note on the TP of Pocketthis, but I'm not sure it will do any good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Pocketthis has a long history of aggressive editing, incivility, and article ownership issues (topic ban from editing articles on religion, [94], [95], more ownership on DUI CA, links from SarekOfVulcan, etc). This is not Pocketthis's first warning for incivility and disruptive editing. Given the response to your advice ([96]), I am not hopeful that this behavior is going to change. I support a block to deter similar behavior in the future if others are in agreement. Malinaccier (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support block per Malinaccier. Clearly not interested in cooperation and collegiality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support block per Malinaccier. Just looking at the DUI California case, of which I'm only aware because I'd tagged it for problems quite some time ago and didn't get around to revisiting it. Looking back over the history of the article it seems my concerns along with those of others went ignored or criticized. I am gladdened to see some improvement happening at that article, given people with DUI charges and related problems can be among some of our most vulnerable and desperate readers. I also skimmed Pocketthis's user talk page history (which isn't convenient given the absence of archives and that Pocketthis seems to remove threads containing warnings or concerns very shortly after they're posted) and, like Malinaccier, didn't like what I saw.
  Normally I'd be surprised at the call for a block for civility/page ownership/etc., particularly given the lack of clue Pocketthis has demonstrated strongly suggests a new or inexperienced editor, and Pocketthis has a clean block log. However, Pocketthis has been around for about six years and has nearly 4000 edits, with those edits spread pretty evenly over that time: This is not a new user. As to the empty block log, the user talk page diffs above and presumably deeper into Pocketthis's user talk page history indicate that warnings have been tried repeatedly (and ignored), and that Pocketthis has somehow managed to avoid any blocks in this time. I'm not hopeful for a positive outcome from blocking, but we can't have this sort of conduct continuing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I will note, though, this editor did receive a three-month block over at Commons for civility issues in 2014. See here: Old revision of commons user talk page with now-deleted comments. The level of rage that happened then doesn't look much different from what we've seen so far here at enwiki. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Pocketthis apparently has an ongoing history of...difficult interactions with other editors. I'm only commenting in this thread because I kept seeing his talk page blinking on my watchlist over the last hour or so, and I couldn't for the life of me remember why it was there. Turns out it goes back to a 2015 discussion on WP:FTN. In Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 46#File:UFO and Meteor Shower over High Desert.jpg, he was very stubbornly insisting that star trails and an aircraft's lights in a nighttime photo he had taken were a meteor shower and a UFO, respectively. He got particularly nasty on another editor's talk page: [97]. Looking at Talk:DUI California, it appears that the sense of OWNership and non-collegial attitude have persisted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• I can't help thinking this might be a case of EUI Wikipedia (EUI = Editing Under the Influence). Guy sounds like nothing so much as a mean drunk. EEng 12:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  Well, I mean, we've all been there... r-right? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• After this response to some helpful advice, I almost indef blocked them myself. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Well, [98] is just fantastic. MitchG74 16:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• I've got no opinion on Pocketthis (well, not true, there's definitely a problem there), but I'm curious why we tolerate an obvious returning problem user stirring up shit? It's irksome when Pocketthis's previous problematic edits from a few years ago are pointed to, but MitchG74's almost certain history of problematic edits from approx. three weeks ago can't be evaluated as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Sorry Floq, I'm not sure what you mean there. If you are referring to the discussion I started in RfA talk, it was just a suggestion. If you are referring to the balloon essay, it was deleted after Darylgolden and I had a discussion and i realized it wasn't a good use of Wikipedia. Let's move this discussion to my talk page though. This really isn't the place for this. Other, feel more than free to join in. MitchG74 16:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Look at a calendar; three weeks ago was when you created this latest account. I'm talking about whatever problematic edits you made with your previous account(s), which we can't look at because you've created this new one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Previous accounts? I had one about a year ago that had like 3 edits that I forgot the name of, but that's it. Like I said though, talk page. MitchG74 16:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

LOL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jpbowen

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

The article on IGI Global, a questionable publisher, was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination). The deleted version was largely written by Jpbowen. After deletion he wrote a section in Hershey, Pennsylvania ([99]). He also created a redirect (deleted Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 30#IGI Global) using {{redirect with possibilities}} despite it just having been deleted. He just re-created the deleted article. I think this is now at the level of WP:POINT. And also WP:COI: Jpbowen is, he confirms, Jonathan Bowen, and it takes about nine seconds to verify that he has been published by IGI (e.g. Virtual Collaboration and Community, Ann Borda (VeRSI, Australia) and Jonathan P. Bowen. In Information Resources Management Association (ed.), Virtual Communities: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications, IGI Global, chapter 8.9, pages 2600-2611, 2011.). Guy (Help!) 15:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that this is not an identical article to the previous one and I have no commercial connection with IGI Global. I have published with IGI Global in the past but not since 2011 and I have no plans to do so in the future. The article was updated in particular with an added a section on Criticism including enough references IMHO to make the publisher now "notable" in Wikipedia terms - four blog posts and two publications with DOIs from 2017 since the last deletion.

Criticism

IGI Global has received criticism for its practices in a number of publications and forums over the years,(Weber-Wulff, Debora (31 December 2007). "Write-only publications". Copy, Shake, and Paste: A blog about plagiarism and scientific misconduct. Retrieved 18 December 2017. Bogost, Ian (24 November 2008). [www.bogost.com "Write-Only Publication: IGI Global and Other Vampire Presses"]. bogost.com. Retrieved 18 December 2017. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help) What's wrong with Scholarly Publishing? New Journal Spam and "Open Access". UK: University of Cambridge. 16 July 2011. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) "IGI Global – Legit publisher? Or akin to pay-to-play?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 29 May 2012. Retrieved 18 December 2017.) e.g., as a "rogue book publisher".(Eriksson, Stefan; Helgesson, Gert (June 2017). "The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 20 (2): 163–170. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3. PMC 5487745. PMID 27718131.) The company has been used as a case study in predatory publishing.(Sewell, Claire (2017). "Perish even if you Publish? The problem of 'predatory' publishers". Office of Scholarly Communication. UK: University of Cambridge. doi:10.17863/CAM.10097.)

I believe this is now notable enough under WP:CORP – WP:CORPDEPTH since the last deletion with the new references. Hence the reason for re-creation now. Please explain why this is not notable enough for Wikipedia with the newly added references or reinstate the article if this was an oversight, thank you. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You "forgot" to mention that you are published by IGI so you have a COI. Just as you "forgot" to go through any deletion review or other independent process to check if it was OK for you to re-create the article on your publisher which was deleted, and the redirect you created was deleted, and the section you created in another article was deleted. This is about you, not IGI. You never accepted the deletion. You also WP:POINTedly created articles on journals published by IGI, backed solely by directory sources. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Those other edits are pretty bad- yeah there's definitely shouldn't be a section there in Hershey. However the previous AfD close in the article was "very narrow consensus" for delete, and the closer indicated the possibility of a neutral article that reflects academic view. If there is an extra criticism section, that could be enough to satisfy that, and so that creation isn't disruptive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Then again the actual AfD seems to have way more delete !votes so IDK Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not about IGI, it's about WP:POINT and WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"This is about you" – I find this bordering on WP:PERSONAL rather than concentrating on (current) content. "He just re-created the deleted article." – All these deletions were before the new criticism section and independent references (some from 2017) were added. I believe it is now a balanced article. The last deletion discussion over a year ago was quite finely balanced and I believe the new references tip it the other way. Why would I include a criticism section if there is a serious WP:COI? Certainly, I believe there should be a discussion on the new article, IMHO, created in WP:GOODFAITH, rather than deletion with no discussion. I believe the editor who deleted this article with no discussion is also trying to make a WP:POINT. Please, could an independent administrator look at the latest deleted IGI Global article and determine if it is now balanced and with appropriate independent references for notability (which is not the same is reputability)? For the record, I do not see IGI Global as "my publisher" (the 2011 publication was just a foreword in a book) – and it is most likely I will never publish with them again for the reasons in the criticism section – but I do see the company as one that has now has enough independent coverage to be included on Wikipedia. I think this needs to be decided by an administrator who has not been involved with previous discussions on the article if possible. I accept all the previous decisions and I will accept whatever an independent administrator decides on the latest version of the article. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the admin noticeboard. I notified my fellow admins abotu behavioural issues. It is literally about you. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• [Disclaimer, I believe I edited this article before deletion.] Maybe undelete the original article (+talk + archives) and move to draft? If there's new coverage that's the best option. It also gives us the list of previous editors we can ping to assist. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe not. The only new source since deletion is a PowerPoint presentation. Bowen presents this as IGI having been given as "a case study in predatory publishing", which is true, but the source is not peer reviewed and would not survive. I am sure it was not his intent to re-create the same article plus some additional trivia that rapidly gets removed as failing WP:RS, but that is exactly the situation. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Also in a peer-reviewed journal: Stefan; Helgesson, Gert (June 2017). "The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 20 (2): 163–170. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3. Why does this not count? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a single namecheck and referenced back to Bogost's blog (which is as accurate a summary as you could want, but self-published). Guy (Help!) 15:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Seven

Before reading this report, please read my previous one.

@Ad Orientem, Oshwah, NeilN, Diannaa, JamesBWatson, Widr, and Yaris678: The disruptive user is back as 85.242.48.58 (talk · contribs) and has been blocked for vandalism. User succeeded in locking S.L. Benfica (roller hockey) with his/her edits, after removing reliable sources and adding a fan forum as a reliable source. As you can see in the page's history, this user has disrupted Wikipedia before with other IP addresses, also in articles related with Portuguese sports. The user's behavior (edit warring) and edit summaries (e.g. "Reverted vandalism.") are always the same. Here's a list of previous IP addresses used by the vandal: 85.245.207.229 (talk · contribs), 85.243.157.170 (talk · contribs), 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:1CCA:73CE:7A1F:D8B9 (talk · contribs) (check edits made with the prefix 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*), 85.245.81.227 (talk · contribs), 85.247.78.198 (talk · contribs), 85.245.57.238 (talk · contribs), 85.243.158.95 (talk · contribs), 85.245.78.188 (talk · contribs), 85.247.75.208 (talk · contribs), 81.193.37.35 (talk · contribs), 85.241.157.25 (talk · contribs) and so on. This is getting tiresome. Please do something about it. SLBedit (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The vandal's only known account so far is CoUser1 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The list is re-organized and below, with what I found from checking the edits made by each /16 range:

• 81.193.37.35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Not much going on there...
• 85.241.157.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Definitely a lot of activity in this /16, including the disruptive edits.
• 85.242.48.58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Same. A lot of activity in this /16, including the disruptive edits.
• 85.243.157.170 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Not much lately...
• 85.243.158.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.245.57.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Recent activity is low. Only two edits this month.
• 85.245.81.227 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.245.207.229 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.245.78.188 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.247.75.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Not much lately here either...
• 85.247.78.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - No edits since August 2016...

If it were me, I'd be putting my money down on the 85.241.0.0/16 and 85.242.0.0/16 ranges... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. However, I have very limited experience with range blocks and have only done a few. So I am going to defer to the judgement of more experienced and tech savvy admins (cough^^^ cough^^^). -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - They're not that bad ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the storm has passed. Only two edits since 17th of December, and they can be verified by this. Archived 2019-05-26 at the Wayback Machine I will keep an eye on these ranges, but I don't think a range block is justified right now. Yaris678 (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What should I do if the vandal returns with another IP address and this report is already archived? SLBedit (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

user:AaronWikia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user has more than once modified others comments on talk pages [100], [101]. I left this message to try to explain [102], I apologize if that was not the correct way in approaching this, but here is the response: [103]. And here is a sampling of responses to cautions or attempts to discuss issues in the past: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]. On a couple of those occasions it was actually in response to me trying to save an article from deletion that he had created.18abruce (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For one, you are required to notify the user. I have done so for you. Kleuske (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Kleuske, 18abruce did notify AaronWikia, who removed the notification within a couple of minutes. --bonadea contributions talk 08:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to 18abruce. Kleuske (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

While this was maybe not an ideal way to tell the user not to blank other people's comments on talk pages, AaronWikia's comments are rather unacceptable. A WP:NPA warning is definitely called for. --bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obviously WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

.

wikiqueenie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Editing history is short and speaks for itself. Kleuske (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. For future reference this sort of obvious vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Kleuske (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No apology needed. That was just an fyi. Thanks for alerting us to this situation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newly-registered edit warrior on a BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A new editor adds his own original research to the article "Anatoly Shariy". He created a "Controversy" section and filled it with unsourced information and his own interpretation of what happened in a YouTube video. (The video is a copyright violation, by the way.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP 93.74.111.133 (Kiev) and User:BobbyVinton are obviously the same person. I reverted him three times, but he kept reverting me back, so I had to stop. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not see how it can be "my own interpretation", since I merely quoted this person's statements about homosexuality. He's saying that homosexuals should be cured and live apart by creating a city called Gomorrah. I'm just quoting him, nothing else. BobbyVinton (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked User:BobbyVinton for a username violation, as there's a living person, a singer, by that name. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I was interested to learn that Bobby Vinton is still alive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed the content added and decided to remove it. A better source should be found per WP:BLP. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That's strange. The IP has also been active on the French Wikipedia (contributions ). He doesn't seem to like RT and a French historian named François Durpaire. --21:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The user has now chosen a new username (BobbyV1987) so I have unblocked. If folks could help watch for the next few hours while I wrap Christmas gifts and do other RL things that would be perfect. 🎄 — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Diannaa for unblocking, I did not know about that rule for living persons. I've submitted a name change request. As for User:Moscow Connection, I do not see what you try to -deceitfully- insinuate here. BobbyVinton (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah... not a good first step after being unblocked, "deceitfully insinuate". A simple, "I don't see what you're getting at" would be sufficient. Tone it down, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Article protected for two days while the new user learns how to collaborate on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:BobbyVinton checkuser blocked by Bbb23. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• There is no BobbyV1987 (talk · contribs), but since it's a sock it doesn't really matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Why is it every time a probable sock says "I'm not a sock", I immediately flash to Richard Nixon saying "I'm not a crook"? [109]Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Discussion is ongoing at User talk:BobbyVinton, with Bbb23 saying he'd look into the editor's status further. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rtc and birth control

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Context: "fertility awareness methods" of birth control are advocated almost exclusively by religious groups, as they have a high failure rate. User rtc is trying to include special pleading about how they are really not a lottery after all as long as you use multiple techniques. So far he has tried edit warring, condescension[110] and WP:POINTy tagging[111][112]. Numerous other editors are reverting the changes, including Doc James, who I think we're all aware is medically qualified. I think a topic ban is needed. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• What is condescension about hinting someone at a surprising mathematical fact?
• What constitutes in any way special pleading in my edits, where do my edits say or even suggest anything is "not a lottery"?
• The purpose of my edits is plain and simple. It is about confusing and unclear parts, as well as incorrectly cited sources. I have explained this extensively on the talk page, and summarized it in edit comments, when, as a last resort, I refrained completely from changing the article but merely tagged the problematic parts:
  • source does not mention the notion of "total" sexual abstinence, let alone advocate it
  • Not clear whether method means merely the techniques mentioned before or includes the symptothermal method mentioned only after the statment
  • WP:WEASEL. The source does not mention anything about groups
  • 0.4 to 5% is a quite wide spectrum; which is which?
• WP:POINT is about acting contrary to your own principles to prove a point. I did not do this. I have consistently criticized those parts of the article as unclear and unsourced and all my changes, including the tags, are consistent with that criticism. See WP:POINT#Important note
• Now, Doc James is even reverting those well-argued tags. In this dispute, User JzG has reverted my edits with only vague and changing arguments (first it's "version is more informative", then suddenly it's "tendentious editing") and blocked me with specious arguments, and Doc James is not actually replying to simple questions, bullying me with reverts, ignoring my arguments, and JzG is extensively making use of arguments from authority ("is medically qualified", see above and "qualified medical professional with peer-reviewed publications to his name") -- do I have to disclose my identity and qualification as Doc James does for my arguments to be given the same weight as his? Do users who do this have any special rights on Wikipedia? (Even those who advocate credentials verification once stressed that "Reliance on credentials is never an acceptable approach to content decisions") It is my impression their strategy is "ignore, revert, be provocative to trick him into violating rules and get him blocked". This is emphasized by the fact that JzG is posting this ANI request for something that is clearly a content dispute. But what is the reason for this bullying? I am just a well-meaning editor who intends to improve the article. I have nothing to do with religion nor do I advocate fertility-based methods or even think they are very reasonable. In fact, I am quite skeptical about the "0.4%" claim in the article because the symptothermal method paper cited by the summary paper used as the main source in the article raises some flags. --rtc (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to demonstrate the problem more comprehensively than I had time for. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You are speaking in riddles. That I defend myself against bullying and nonsense is the problem? And thanks that you are demonstrating the problem (ignoring my arguments). --rtc (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I recall one biology teacher I had, talking about the costs of various kinds of contraception. They said the "rhythm method" costs the most, because you'll have a child nine months later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with my edits? --rtc (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious why you think a citation is needed that 100 percent abstinence is 100 percent foolproof. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Where did I say or suggest anything like that? --rtc (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree that it's 100 percent foolproof and does not require a citation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if the Bible has taught us anything... Okay, I'll get my coat nagualdesign 13:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That was known long before there was any such thing as a Bible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't realize that virgin births were a common occurrence. I assumed there'd only been the one. Maybe you could copy one or two references from here? nagualdesign 13:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The dogma of immaculate conception dates back to December 8, 1854 exactly. I think the early Christians would have believed it, but most modern-day non-Catholic Christians seem to me to take it as allegorical. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy The immaculate conception is not the same as the virgin birth. fun fact #1 - "immaculate conception" is about the conception of Mary by her parents. The notion there being Mary was untainted by Original Sin, which is said to be transmitted via intercourse, and is right there a'waiting when the new soul comes in at conception. The notion here is that the "vessel" that was going to hold Jesus needed to be immaculate. Fun fact #2 is that this doctrine was the topic of one of the very few speech acts where a Pope spoke "ex cathedra" (in other words, said an "infallible" thing. Some say that's only happened twice. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I was raised Catholic, and even have a certificate of merit for my knowledge of the Catechism. but I didn't know this stuff. Very interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, Guy, Jehovah's Witnesses don't seem to understand the meaning of the word allegorical, and there seem to be plenty of Shimkus types around, sadly. nagualdesign 23:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that has nothing to do with my edits and it is a trick question. I certainly do not advocate unsourced content in Wikipedia. While I personally believe that 100 percent abstinence is quite safe, and certainly nearly 100%, I wouldn't be surprised either that its not exactly 100%, as sperm can leave the body unintended during sleep and can probably find its way to an egg in unexpected ways by accident, in particular if a woman is sleeping in the same bed. --rtc (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed for evidence that anything like that has ever happened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with my edits. What I stated was my personal opinion about the topic, as I stressed. Even if it were not, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It does not lie with the editor who removes an unsourced statement. I personally would tolerate an unsourced statement that "100 percent abstinence is 100 percent foolproof", as it may be a reasonable simplification of reality, but I wouldn't defend the statement either if someone deletes it because it lacks a source. I do not advocate unsourced content in Wikipedia, no matter how obvious the content is claimed to be. If it is so obvious, it should be especially easy to find a source. And FYI, yes, there are some studies that find people reporting alleged "virgin births". The most common conjecture is that the self-reports are simply lies. But I personally wouldn't be surprised either if in at least some of the cases those pregnancies are caused by the possibility I described. --rtc (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You know, technically speaking there's no conclusive proof that there will be sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere to support a single human life tomorrow, but I think we can safely make that statement without needing to refer to a reliable source. On a different topic, related to your interest in articles about birth control/pregnancy etc., did you know that babies are affected by what their mother sees during pregnancy? I'd suggest blindfolding every mother-to-be, except that would mean all babies would be born blind. Marianna251TALK 13:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This has even less to do with my edits. This is about birth control, not about oxygen, the problem of induction or blindfolding. We have scientific sources that estimate the time left on earth under stable atmospheric conditions, which include not only tomorrow but quite some time in the future. See Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System#Future and Future of Earth. Reliable sources are what's needed, not conclusive proof. --rtc (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point? Or possibly missing it entirely, I'm not sure. You might want to read Wikipedia:When to cite. The claim that the earth will have sufficient oxygen on it to support human life tomorrow does not, actually, require a citation because it is not "challenged or likely to be challenged". The same goes for 100% abstinence preventing pregnancy. If you're going to make an absurd claim like the idea that a woman can become pregnant from a sharing a bed with a man despite there being no sexual contact between them (and ruling out cases of somnophilic/drugged rape, since those do involve sexual contact), then you need a reliable source to back it up. The opposite does not hold true. Claiming it does is either sheer bloody-mindedness to the point of surrealism, or deliberate disruption. Based on the series of WP:POINTy tags you added to the birth control article ([113][114][115]) after your previous edits were reverted, I'm leaning towards the latter. Marianna251TALK 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not making or suggesting any claim at all about the efficacy of abstinence. I was drawn into this fruitless discussion by User:Baseball_Bugs's trick question above ("Do you agree that it's 100 percent foolproof and does not require a citation?"). If I say "no" I would make the absurd claim that it's significantly less than 100% foolproof. If I say "yes", it would mean I support violating WP:V. I have stressed my replies are my personal opinion. I have stressed I would tolerate such a statement even without source. I have stressed I would not defend it if someone else removes it. I am simply indifferent, I don't care, because this silly question has nothing at all to do with my edits. It has nothing at all to do with the tags I added. I have stressed in my initial reply that WP:POINT fundamentally does not apply at all to the way I used those tags -- to show what I disagree with, not for "making edits with which [I] do not actually agree". WP:POINT would be to advocate removing a tag, and, when failing, adding similar tags to similar places to prove the point. Please stop using unrelated topics to divert from the issue at stake. Please discuss my actual edits and my actual arguments. --rtc (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is relevant, because you have been changing the wording of the article to change the claims about the efficacy of abstinence ([116][117][118]); when these were apparently to "follow the source", Doc James explained to you why the original followed the source better. In defending these edits, you made some frankly absurd claims here, to which several editors, myself included, responded with incredulity. You added tags to the article to introduce doubt to perfectly acceptable statements in the article only after your changes were reverted several times as incorrect/not an improvement and the issues were discussed on the talk page. That's listed as one of the classic WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, so yes, WP:POINT is wholly relevant here, as was BB's question and the corresponding discussion. You made some edits; they were reverted with an explanation; you kept making them; the problems with them were further explained to you; you responded with condescension; you decided to switch from the edits that kept being reverted to instead add specious, irrelevant tags to other editors' work. This could have stayed as a content dispute until you added those tags - in my opinion, that tipped your behaviour over into disruptive editing and fully justified JzG's report here. Marianna251TALK 15:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

None of the edits you cite has anything to do with the efficacy of abstinence. Only one of those edits ("Abstinence{ {Clarify}} is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy" ) is vaguely related because it is in a sentence about it. But this edit is not about efficacy, it is about unclarity, because the preceding statement gives two different definitions of abstinence and was is not clear which one is referred to. If you look at the current version, the clarification was done (by me) and accepted (not reverted by the others until now). So this edit seems to be completely uncontroversal. As stressed, none of the other edits has anything even remotely to do with the efficacy of abstinence; more than that, most of the changes are about completely different sections such as the one about fertility-based methods. I added tags to the article because I think there are definite issues where I placed them. I gave arguments (repeated above) in my edits adding those tags explaining clearly why I added them. My intention by adding those tags was to calm down the dispute by not introducing further content changes in the article, and merely showing where I see the problems, instead of trying myself to find a solution for them. My hope was that the others would perhaps accept, even if not my content proposals, then at least my criticism expressed by those well-argued tags, as a compromise. And you again repeat the false accussation of condescension. Nothing in my statement is condescension in any way, not even remotely. I have not made any absurd claims here; you are making absurd claims, you are diverting from the issue, misquoting me, make false allegations and overall fail to see the point completely. --rtc (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A statement that 100% abstinence is 100% effective should not be in the article, sourced or not, because it's not true. Abstinence is not not having sex, it's not choosing to have sex, and it fails in cases of rape, which is a tragic truth for many. This differentiates it from other birth control methods; an implant keeps working even if the sex is involuntary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Nat Gertler, I don't understand this edit you made. Abstinence, when termed sexual abstinence, is defined as not engaging in any kind of sexual activity (unless one means partial abstinence). Obviously, actively not engaging in sexual activity is a choice...unless what is being talked about is the involuntary celibacy issue that keeps coming up. And the lead Abstinence section already states "however, not everyone who intends to be abstinent actually does so, and in many populations there is a significant risk of pregnancy from nonconsensual sex." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the sexual abstinence page you pointed to, you'll see that it is defined as "refraining" from sexual activity. Look up refrain, and you'll find such definitions as "stop oneself from doing something" (Google) or "to keep oneself from doing, feeling, or indulging in something and especially from following a passing impulse" (Merriam Webster), "to abstain from an impulse to say or do something" (dictionary.com), and similar definitions. The person being raped is not having an impulse, and is not doing something but is rather having something done to them. The person being raped still qualifies as abstaining, but may still get pregnant. And, on the other hand, someone who is trying to get laid and failing is not "abstinent", but their lack of sex will still prevent pregnancy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Nat Gertler, I watch and occasionally edit the Sexual abstinence article. That is beside the point, though. I am stating that many reliable sources define sexual abstinence as not engaging in sexual activity. More specifically, choosing not to engage in sexual activity, and especially choosing not to in order to avoid STIs and pregnancy. Some definitions of celibacy (as sourced in the Celibacy article) also define celibacy as choosing not to engage in sexual activity. Sexual abstinence is not so much about fighting an impulse, at least definition-wise, despite how the word refrain may be used and/or interpreted. And like I stated on the article's talk page regarding use of refraining, sources on sexual abstinence are usually speaking of intentionally not being sexual. We could change the lead of the Sexual abstinence article, which I will likely do. But stating "sexual abstinence is abstaining from" could be considered redundant since abstain and refrain are commonly used as synonyms. I'll think about other options for that lead and the lead of the Abstinence article. Anyway, I don't think that the previous text was implying or overlooking anything regarding rape. It's clear via sources what sexual abstinence means. People know that rape is a matter concerning consent. A person is not said to have not been abstinent because they were raped. As for "someone who is trying to get laid and failing is not 'abstinent'," I agree, but "involuntary celibacy" has been discussed to the death on this site (as seen in the wikilink I provided above) and many people who state that they are involuntarily sexually abstinent or involuntary celibate relay that they are not necessarily trying to get laid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Flyer22 Reborn: As you say, "choosing not to engage in sexual activity" - a person can make that choice and still become pregnant through rape, which is not a choice (on their part). As such, saying that being abstinent, making that choice, is 100% effective is false, and thus that language needed to be changed. Anyway, this is a content discussion, and I've opened a thread at Talk:Birth control#Abstinence, which is where this discussion should move. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not reading the matter in the way that you are. And, again, the lead Abstinence section already states "however, not everyone who intends to be abstinent actually does so, and in many populations there is a significant risk of pregnancy from nonconsensual sex." But I'll weigh in on the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the non-obvious fact that this was intended to include rape wasn't clear to me. One way or another, nothing of this discussion has anything to do with my edits. --rtc (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Rapists are not practicing abstinence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rtc:, I have not been previously involved with this so I am posting in the hope that an outside opinion may be of use. Going only by what I see and ignoring any possible motivations or intentions, I see this pattern: When another editor points out issues with your conduct, you reply with an assertion that their comment did not explain why your content was poor. When another editor points out issues with your content, you reply with an assertion that their comment did not explain why your conduct was poor. This pattern is diagnostic of tendentious editing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and a poor place to try to promote a viewpoint. Other editors have already explained copiously why your proposed sources do not support your proposed edits so I will not repeat them but the important point is that your edits are not felt by other editors to be in compliance with the core content policies. Whether they are correct in this assessment or not, attempting to defend these edits against the consensus of your fellow editors is disruptive. There are dispute resolution mechanisms and policies that have not been invoked in this case. Speaking in generalities, editors in content disputes that avoid or ignore these mechanisms face poor results and, eventually, sanctions on their editing. Best wishes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Nope.

• "When another editor points out issues with your conduct, you reply with an assertion that their comment did not explain why your content was poor" With regards to my conduct, editors accused me of condescension and violation of WP:POINT. I replied by explaining why my statement was not in any way condescension, and why WP:POINT does not apply. Where did I divert discussion to content?
• "When another editor points out issues with your content, you reply with an assertion that their comment did not explain why your conduct was poor." With regards to my content, editors accused me of adding to the article that "[fertility awareness method] are really not a lottery after all". In reply, I explained that I never added such a claim. They also claimed I was adding to the article absurd claims about abstinence not being 100% safe. In reply, I explained that I never added such a claim either. Where did I divert discussion to conduct?
• "Other editors have already explained copiously why your proposed sources do not support your proposed edits" In fact, I have not proposed any source, and not even any of those opposing me are claiming such a thing. In fact, they are claiming the oppoosite: That I demand sources for the claim that abstinence is "100 percent foolproof" while none are necessary. Which is not true either. Neither did I demand such a source, nor were any of my edits related to the efficacy of abstinence in the first place.
• "and a poor place to try to promote a viewpoint" In fact, have not tried to promote a viewpoint. I have tried to fix unclear, ambigous, confusing and unsourced statements.
• "There are dispute resolution mechanisms and policies that have not been invoked in this case." In fact, User:Doc James has suggested that we do an RfC on the issue and I have clearly stated even though I'm skeptical, I am open to the idea. Unfortunately, User:JzG made the choice to try to get me blocked instead, and so I am wasting my time here, having to defend myself against blatantly false accusations, instead of putting energy into an RfC.

I can only conclude that, like the other comments here, your comment is full of false accusations and off the point. How about a rational discussion. How about saying why my tag adding edits listed in my initial reply are problematic?

• Where does the source even mention the notion of "total" sexual abstinence, let alone advocate it?
• Where does the text make it clear whether method means merely the techniques mentioned before or whether it includes the symptothermal method mentioned only after the statement?
• How is this not a WP:WEASEL word and where does the source mention anything about groups?
• Why can't we say which method exactly is 0.4 and which is 5%, ie., more than ten times as much, despite the fact that the source clearly differentiate between them? Why do we have to confuse the reader by giving a range where exact information is available in the source?

--rtc (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rtc:, I shouldn't need to point out the irony inherent in starting your reply by rejecting the observation that "...when another editor points out issues with your conduct, you reply with an assertion that their comment did not explain why your content was poor..." and ending with a demand that I explain why your proposed content is poor. You have given my personal observation concrete reality and in so doing, demonstrated exactly the problematic conduct better than any set of diffs or arguments could. My comments were obviously not helpful and I will bow out in failure. I am honestly sorry I could not contribute to understanding here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: "and ending with a demand that I explain why your proposed content is poor" What? You alleged that I am diverting discussion about conduct to a discussion about content. I asked you for an example where I did that. Now you claim this statement itself is an example. That's simply nonsense. Nothing about this request is about content; it asks you for an exact example about where I diverted a discussion about conduct to a discussion about content. --rtc (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't respond but a direct question deserves a direct quote.@Rtc:: How about saying why my tag adding edits listed in my initial reply are problematic?. I don't believe I have anything further useful to add and I think my observations are sufficiently clear to whomever closes this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Okay, then I was misunderstanding what you meant by "and ending with". Your accusations were about both conduct ("I see this pattern") and content ("your proposed sources do not support your proposed edits"). Concerning conduct, I asked you for an example where I diverted a discussion about conduct to a discussion about content. Concerning content, among other arguments, I made the proposal "How about saying why my tag adding edits ...". (If this were the only paragraph in my comment, I would be diverting, and you were right, but it is clearly not.) So I replied to both kinds of accusations. Now you are using this fact against me: Instead of actually replying to any of my arguments about content or conduct, you ignored all of them and claim I was diverting the one to the other. That's simply ridiculous and unfair. --rtc (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, for what it's worth, this is technically correct. The source doesn't say anything about what any groups advocate, but rather what certain individuals may do. As to this, I see the 0.4% in the source, but I ain't seeing any 24 or 5% about anything at all. The same probably applies to this too, since I'm not totally sure where it comes from. Maybe I'm missing it. I never claimed to be the sharpest crayon in the box.

I mean, yeah. Thinking you can have a wet dream and get your partner pregnant is pretty far off the mark. It's... much harder than that. There's apps for tracking your cycle and everything to the point where the whole thing becomes a chore. But... I can't help but find some sympathy for the idea that a lot of this thread is a red herring and doesn't really address the core issue at all. Maybe someone can correct me. GMG^talk 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's... much harder than that. I see what you did there. heh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, finally someone is actually looking at the issue. I would have wished one of the others did, as it would have prevented this whole fruitless discussion. About "I see the 0.4% in the source, but I ain't seeing any 24 or 5% about anything at all" -- this is actually in the source, in the first table (table 1 at [119]. But the table clearly says which is which, it does not give a range. The current version in birth control does merely give a range. In the current version of the article, any method might be 0.4%, which is a magnitude less than 5%. That unnecessarily confuses the reader; why leave them uninformed when more precise information is available? --rtc (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo The source supports the definition of abstinence. I think you and rtc misread it as claiming that it supports the statement that some groups advocate it. The correct tag would be:

Some groups{{who?}} advocate total [[sexual abstinence]], by which they mean the avoidance of all sexual activity.<ref name=PP2009/>

But that's not what rtc did. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is exactly what I did. Such blatantly false arguments clearly show that you did not actually look at my edits at all. The other tag (failed verification) was about the fact that the source does not support the definition of "total" abstinence. The entire source does not contain the word "total". "total" is a very extreme word, it can easily be understood to mean that you never ever have sex with anyone at all. Further, the source does not advocate anything. It merely lists various degrees of abstinence for various reasons and various lengths of time and also lists abstinence from vaginal intercourse (which it also calls "outercourse"). So it emphatically does not advocate the more stringent definition of abstinence. --rtc (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

To Guy, nah man. The PP source really doesn't support that really at all. To rtc, the range (now that I know where it's at) ... (not the sharpest crayon) actually seems okay. I can see that there would be room for an explanatory footnote, or perhaps more detail in the body, but it does seem to be overall supported by the source, although it might not be evident to the reader upon first glance. GMG^talk 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

To my reading, it does. Regardless, the tagging was WP:POINT after rejection of numerous attempts to make Vatican Roulette look less terrible than it is. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not made any such attempt at all Please stop making clearly false claims about my edits. If you think something I edited can be understood in this way, please obey the almighty sea-lion and provide a diff. Your reading? You obviously did not read the source. In no way does the source advocate the more stringent definition. It describes both definitions (calling the other "outercourse"), both in several variants, without bias towards the one or the other. --rtc (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

To my reading, it does Then... I guess... I can assume you haven't actually read it. No offense. But it's pretty self evidently talking about something different entirely. GMG^talk 01:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree a clarifying footnote would be a good idea. However, another problem I see is this: The section first lists techniques. Those techniques are in the range of 3-5% according to the source. This range (with explanatory footnote) would be okay for me, as it is of the same magnitude and cannot be misunderstood. However, the section gives a range of 0.4 to 5%. 0.4% is for the symptothermal method, which uses a combination of the techniques. This method, however, is mentioned only after the statment with the range. Would you expect a reader to understand correctly that the range includes the method that has not been mentioned yet? That's the reason for this tag. --rtc (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for TBAN of User:rtc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:rtc is topic banned from the subject of birth control broadly construed.

1. Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Support - the evidence above is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Support - the behavior has gone from tendentious to sea-lioning especially with their new proposal below. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   Could you please explain to the non-initiated reader what "sea-lioning" means and which wikipedia policy this is? --rtc (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   see here Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   Haha! Brilliant. That should really be codified into official policy somehow. nagualdesign 00:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Although it's not precisely on target, I'm adding WP:SEALIONING as a shortcut to WP:CPUSH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   definitely. And quickly get rid of this too. Arguments? Who needs arguments. Admins should clearly be free to make up arbitrary claims and it should be an offense for anyone to politely request evidence for them, ie. to "sea-lion". --rtc (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

4. Support After reading this thread and seeing the comment below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   Oppose - Unless someone actually addresses my concerns above. GMG^talk 22:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   !Voted again below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

5. Support but note that the user isn't polite enough to be sea-lioning, as shown by pointy proposal below. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
6. support per alternate proposal below and sealioning above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose I'd support a warning for his maintenance-tag bombing (and the malformed RfC to try to justify it) and a short-term restriction from the Birth control article (but not its talk page). power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   I started this RfC because opposing user User:Doc James suggested it. I was even quite skeptical it is useful. I don't understand why it is now used against me. --rtc (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   I assume he meant an RfC on a suggested change to the content, not on the maintenance tags. I agree that Doc James' comment was unclear and you shouldn't be sanctioned for starting that RfC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   He's not. This is about tendentious editing, and IDHT, not about starting an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

8. Comment The suggestion to start a RfC was for you proposed change in content NOT for whether or not you should add half a dozen tags to the article... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   You reverted my tags directly before suggesting to start an RFC. I am sorry that I don't have the ability of clairvoyance and thus was unable to see that you were referring to an older version. --rtc (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

9. Comment See "Some groups advocate total sexual abstinence, by which they mean the avoidance of all sexual activity.[85]" The content fails verification. The content should be tagged or reworded. This was kind of correct. I would use only a FV span tag instead to highlight the part "Some groups advocate". That part appears to fail verification. QuackGuru (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Not only that part. The part about "total" abstinence, which I would understand as not ever having sex, fails verification, too. The source simply does not contain the word "total". It speaks about "abstinence is not doing ANY kind of sexual stuff with another person". This does not include a time dimension. The source describes various forms of abstinence, some short-term, some longer-term, but none of them total. --rtc (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Total abstinence is 100 percent effective during the time it's used, be that an hour, a day, a month, a year, or a lifetime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Total abstinence means a lifetime. Total is total. And about effectiveness, so what? I don't see your point. The same way I did not see it when you claimed above that I "think a citation is needed that 100 percent abstinence is 100 percent foolproof". You are making up this claim. It's simply not true. None of my edits in birth control is about effectiveness of abstinence. --rtc (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   You would need to provide a citation for the claim that "total" equates to "lifetime". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   No, I would not. Because the source cited does not contain the word "total", regardless of its meaning. Total means "Entire; relating to the whole of something", "Complete; absolute". Cf wikt:totalitarian. --rtc (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Comment. The wording is fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

10. Very weak support largely because a topic ban would solve the issue on this article, but Rtc's talk page and block log indicate that the behavioural issues here (edit warring, sea-lioning, IDHT, etc.) aren't limited to just one subject. I'd suggest 1RR restriction instead, but I'm not sure that fits, either. A topic ban does at least move towards a constructive outcome. Marianna251TALK 02:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    You mean because you found a number of 3RR warnings from over 10 years ago on my discussion page? The accusation of sea-lioning is simply silly. There is no policy that forbids being polite and asking for evidence. In contrast, there is policy against (false) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", see [120] --rtc (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Warnings from 11 years ago, 10 years ago, 9 years ago, 6 years ago, 5 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago, 9 days ago... Yeah, your talk page doesn't support what I said at all, and neither does your reply demonstrate more sea-lioning and IDHT. *eyeroll* Marianna251TALK 03:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Wow, less than one warning per year... Pretty impressive. If only I had switched accounts two years ago as you did ... *yawn* Seems you quite fell in love with that "sea-lioning" line of killer argument, did you? --rtc (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I've never ... switched accounts ...? Certainly not the way you're implying - I had a previous account more than 10 years ago that I used maybe twice and can't remember its details, so I made a new one? And I was not counting individual warnings - if I did, it would be waaaaay more than one per year, as you well know and, again, is obvious from your talk page. Marianna251TALK 10:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    So you've never really had an account before and you instantly know all about vandalism policies, how to use the respective templates on vandal's talk page? You must be a wunderkind, since when I started I needed days before I even figured out how to make a signature on a talk page. --rtc (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Interesting comment. You have about 5k total edits, Marianna about 17k. What should we conclude? We should conclude that by now, you should know better. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Should know better what? How to make signature? I figured that out in the meantime, indeed. --rtc (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    No. I had edited (and still do edit) several Wikia fansites, which use the same wiki markup and have the same basic structure as Wikipedia. They also have central policies and guidelines which vary between sites, as do each site's ways of dealing with vandals and user talk templates, which gave me plenty of experience that was relevant to Wikipedia without actually having anything to do with Wikipedia itself. I've also used Tiddlywiki for personal projects since its inception. Is that good enough for you? Or are you done trying to make this ANI about everyone but you? Either way, I'm out. There's clearly no point in attempting any further discussion with you, I've made my points on the topic of this ANI, and I think your conduct here speaks for itself. It's up to an uninvolved admin to determine what community consensus there is here, if any. Good luck. Marianna251TALK 14:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    One way or another, you came here obviously with lots of prior experience. I did not. Thus, of course I got more warnings than you at the beginning, and accusing me of warnings from years ago is not fair. --rtc (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

11. Support until rtc shows evidence of having a more open mind on these subjects. A proper level of neutrality is impossible when we come into these subjects basing our edits on preconceived and fixed notions instead of on sources and consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    "preconceived and fixed notions instead of on sources"? Did you actually read my edits? Or did you blindly believe JzG's false accusations? --rtc (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

12. Support. We can't have editors draining the community like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose, after taking the time to review this - I don't see evidence of particularly tendentious editing. None of the links provided by Guy are of problematic editing to the article. This edit was entirely correct - the reference for it (here) does indeed not state what the article had stated. And this is also a reasonable edit that I couldn't construe as tendentious - "some groups say" is indeed weasel wording, and asking to clarify a really vague percentage range is hardly a crime against humanity. This thread like a witch hunt because Rtc expressed a non-standard opinion on a talk page. fish&karate 10:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Also, that block stinks. If Rtc was edit warring then so was Doc James, neither version was particularly outré. And at least Rtc was trying to use his edit summaries to explain what he was trying to do, rather than use rollback sans edit summary in a content dispute. No real issue with JzG then using rollback to change the article after blocking, it was done afterwards, the issue is whether a 60-hour block was appropriate in the first place, both in terms of its length (first block in 3 years) and the principle thereof. fish&karate 10:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

14. Strong oppose - (edit conflict) Having reviewed this a couple of times now, to their credit, DocJames appears to have made some effort at discussing the issue and recommending an RfC at the point where discussion starts to fairly obviously go nowhere between the two of them. Obviously the RfC was malformed. No one is going to support maintenance tagging per se, although it probably would have been helpful if someone had explained that the RfC needs to be about a precise disagreement and material improvement to the article, and not about tags. This would have certainly been more helpful than simply reverting the RfC after that's what the editor was explicitly told to do. Surely that wouldn't be frustrating for anyone.

    For their own part, the entire discussion probably would have been better off if Guy had never participated at all, since they start off with an immediate assumption of bad faith and that's pretty much all they contribute to the entire discussion, with literally not a single one of their comments being really at all productive. Furthermore, their block on 14 December, seems at best curious. Looking at the page history, the user was issued an edit warring warning on the 11th after literally a single revert occurring in a string of three edits, and then they were blocked after making two edits two days later, both of which appear to be adjustments, with the only outright reverting happening by DocJames. That they're appeal, which explained that they weren't edit warring (which they in fact appear not to have been doing in any marked way) and that they were actively discussing the edit (which they were) was then simply ignored until it expired doesn't make anything any better.

    Some of the users's previous edits seem perfectly fine, while responses like this, while correct, are not exactly helpful. To their credit, Rtc was the first person to immediately post on the talk page when he was reverted, which is exactly what is supposed to happen, and which started a conversation that lasted about a week before being brought to ANI because apparently the "participants" are bored. Finally, after being reverted, condescended to, blocked, and ignored, the user adds maintenance tags, at least two of which were exactly correct (and as far as I know, I'm the first person to at all notice, and QG is the first person to actually make an attempt at fixing). Then, to their credit, when the tags were removed, they at least attempted to do what they were told to do on the talk page and engage in dispute resolution.

    So to summarize, after all that, if the user left Wikipedia today and never came back I can't say that I would blame them, and they're proposal below I can't say will succeed, but it isn't very far off the mark either. GMG^talk 10:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Edit warring and snarky comments, a block history for tendentious editing and a history with religion-related POV editing, tend to go past the assumption of bad faith and into evidence of bad faith. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Sure. An editor who's been around longer than you have, has made 40k contributions across projects, and before this, had managed to get one 24 hour block in the last ten years. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. GMG^talk 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    What? Rtc has four prior blocks, three for edit warring and one for tendentious editing around intelligent design. I proposed a topic ban because looking back at rtc's history, the sources of strife are outside of his main topic area. Most of his edits are to technical subjects, and appear valuable. But when he gets involved in contentious topics outside of his technical field (intelligent design, Energy Catalyzer, birth control) he seems to lose his cool rather quickly. And rtc has been here a long time, but I was here first :-) I blocked rtc and not Doc James because Doc James is an admin, a doctor, and specialises in medical articles, but rtc was editing outside his normal area, has a prior history of conflict on contentious articles outside his field, and, whether intentional or not, his edits tended to promote POV which is generally rejected. Now, I can be wrong, and this might be one of those times, but every time I go back and look at rtc's talk page, his actions with the tag bombing, his use of snark and so on, I get an overwhelming impression of agenda editing rather than his normal well-referenced technical content. Of course I could be over-reacting, or reading things that aren't there, but that is how it seemed to me. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Guy, rather than assertions, please provide evidence of edit warring (as I assume what has happened on Birth control is not the sum total of it, there must be far more for you to be blocking for 60 hours and demanding a topic ban) , snarky comments (plural, so I would like to see at least two links please), and some evidence of POV editing to a religion-related article. "A block history for tendentious editing" is also unfair, the last block was 3 1/2 years ago, and the one before that was over 10 years ago. I fail to see how one block in the last decade can be described as 'a block history for tendentious editing'; that's a malignant misconstruction of the facts. fish&karate 11:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    "I blocked rtc and not Doc James because Doc James is an admin, a doctor, and specialises in medical articles" So you clearly blocked simply based on credentials. I explained to you at length why this is a completely invalid approach, as it effectively means that you require users to disclose their credentials and identity the way Doc James does (you know that this is done VOLUNTARILY, and users have no obligation to do it, do you?) to not be treated as second-class users. You cannot use the fact that someone doesn't disclose his credentials against him If you do this, you put pressure on people to leave anonymity. And you find it exceptional that editing in contentious topics results in conflicts and people tend to lose their cool? Like here, where you ignore my acual edits and merely make up false accusations that I must be a religious zealot? Where you block me for edit warring where my entire fault was to make an edit (not a revert) that was reverted by someone else (not by me) who disclosed his degree in the medical sciences? Pleeeeeease. --rtc (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    What it looks an awful lot like you did, was see a redlinked user having a discussion with a name you recognized on a controversial topic, assumed the name you recognized was correct (which is fairly evident given what Rtc rightly characterizes as continued bald appeals to authority) and assumed the redlinked user was being disruptive. You looked exactly far enough to find something that confirmed what you had already assumed, a block related to intelligent design, and then looked no further than the block button. You ignored the fact that the block was absolutely ancient and probably also the fact that it appears to be a dispute with one blocked sock, and another editor who was indeffed for harassment in 2011. You ignored the fact that the only block recent enough to consider (and yet three years ago) was related to Energy Catalyzer, and nothing to do with religion, because it didn't fit nicely, as well as the fact that the last conflict they appear to have been in involved Germanwings Flight 9525. You certainly did not evaluate the actual arguments being made, and you don't appear to have counted very well or examined what exactly was being changed when deciding what was and was not edit warring. When deciding what counted as a snarky comment, I highly doubt you considered that most users who have nearly ten times as many contributions to a non-English project, probably speak English as a second language. And instead of doing any of that, decided to dive into a discussion prudence would have said you probably should have never be in to begin with (as someone who just blocked one of the parties), and did so with your own snarky comment about "Vatican Roulette". You continued making nonconstructive and flippant comments, until deciding to come to ANI, because this is apparently the first step in the dispute resolution process. I think that about covers it. </rant> GMG^talk 12:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    You simply make these claims up. You did not read my edits, you did not read the sources. You did not post any evidence. Neither for this accusation ("block history for tendentious editing and a history with religion-related POV editing") nor for any other one you raised in this discussion, starting at very first word in this very ANI request. You made up your mind, for reasons I don't know, that I must be a religious zealot, and now you're fabricating false accusations around that fiction, not providing any evidence and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. --rtc (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    @JzG: - Guy, an administrator ought to be able to justify his administrative actions in policy, so please would you take the time to address the points I raised above, I wouldn't want them to get lost in the wall of text and missed. Thanks. fish&karate 13:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I did. Not to your satisfaction, clearly, but I did. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I asked for evidence of edit warring. Not provided. I asked for diffs of snarky comments. Not provided. I also asked for an explanation as to how one block in the past 10 years constitutes a 'block history for tendentious editing'. Not provided. So no, you did not address my points, in part, or at all. fish&karate 11:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    Let's do a short review. Guy blocks Rtc. Guy proceeds to the talk page and wrote "No evidence to justify this. WP:POINT."[121] Guy reports Rtc to AN/I. The content did fail verification but others did not try to hard enough to resolve the problem or did not understand the content failed verification. I rewrote the content after reading the discussion at AN/I. Should editors be punished or banned for spotting content that failed verification? QuackGuru (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    User:QuackGuru the objections that rtc was making have nothing to do with what you are pointing out here. Do not push this. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    My mistake. I did not understand all the details. It must be the alcohol in the egg nog. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I'm leaving for vacation. happy holidays to everyone. --rtc (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    To folks commenting here, Doc James and I have been dealing with rtc before this specific incident. here are their contribs to the article. Their first edit added unsourced underlined content as follows "Though some groups advocate total sexual abstinence for unmarried girls, ..." ("unmarried girls" is nowhere in the source.) This led to Talk:Birth_control#unsourced which if you read it, especially their first reply to me, you see yet more just wierd misinterpretations, wikilaywering, and IDHT very similar to what happened with regard to the stuff that everyone is looking at now - namely their bizarre argument that the "symptothermal method" is not a method - arguments like this impenetrable mess Please don't take that statement out of its context. The context is that techniques are discussed. Of course any technique directly leads to a method, but not the other way around. Thus the context suggests that this sentence is talking about methods based on the techniques. This suggestion is emphasized by the fact that the section starts talking about the symtpothermal method only AFTER the the statement you cited.. This person is a time suck on this topic. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    What has all this to do with the accusations of the ANI? Where exactly is the misconduct? Let me try to explain my "impenetrable mess" again in simpler language if it is too complicated for you, before I finally have to leave for the transportation. Let's assume that Frank is 4 years old, Betty is 30, Isabelle is 40 and Yvonne is 50. Given this assumption, would you consider the statement about the range in the followingp paragraph to be clear and unambiguous and have the meaning you would intuitively assumee?

    Each person from the Knuth family lives in Berkeley, California. It has some female members, namely Betty, Isabelle and Yvonne. The exact age depends on the person and is in the range of 4-50 years. The person with Betty as the mother and Isabelle as the aunt is called Frank.

    See a problem? That's the problem with the article I was trying to convey. Don't see the problem? Well... I highly recomend WP:STICK and simply enjoy the xmas season. --rtc (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Let's assume that everyone is just as smart as you, and the problem is not about intelligence, but something else altogether. That is what the evidence shows, actually. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    That's not really "dealing with rtc before" in the way that normally justifies a topic ban. "Dealing with rtc before" would be... look at this similar disruption on Abstinence, Sex education and Condom. What you are pointing to is just the beginning of the current conflict; not a separate conflict in a string of conflicts that justifies a topic ban. GMG^talk 22:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    I have not even started to deal with their very bad editing at Comparison of birth control methods. Look at it. This person does not honor MEDRS, adds unsourced content left and right, and batters and tortures the talk page over obscure things. (and has been doing so for years -- try to read Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_42#Introduction from 2007).

    We all have huge amounts of work to do here. I am telling you this person has already wasted a ton of our time and there is no end in sight. Please topic ban them from birth control or better all of human health. We all have better things to do than push that bad content out of WP and then get pinned down at talk pages with bad logic, badly stated, and argued relentlessly for unclear purpose. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    Jyt... I've been on both sides of arguments with you for at least a few years now, but you're making hyperbolic accusations (batters, tortures, no end in sight) that don't seem to be at all backed up with diffs. I have a hard time thinking that you're not overreacting. There was at least one glaringly obvious error here that the editor rightly pointed out, and that anyone taking the arguments seriously would have caught, and if you had caught that to begin with, I would take your position more seriously, but since you didn't, it looks alot like ignoring argument in favor of railroading. GMG^talk 00:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    GNG, you can see me how ever you like, but i am no sloppy railroader. Again look at their actual edits at the birth control and look at this bunch of crap they added to the comparison article. Their history is short and very very clear on this topic and they are turning it into a timesink just like they did at the ID article. I will not be taking more time here. People will look at the diffs and behavior or they won't. Heck even you have been banging your head fruitlessly against their brick wall, so I have no idea why you are opposing. Whatever. I am not here for drama. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    Well, for whatever it's worth, I'm not making an accusation of bad faith, even though I understand how it could come off that way. I get that certain topics are a battleground, and that so many of the names we don't recognize turn out almost immediately to be toxic POV pushers that it can become difficult to recall ones that weren't. (That's precisely why I intentionally don't stay in these areas for more than a few weeks at a time.)

    But I think it's pretty evident here that if this same conflict arose on an uncontroversial topic, or if it had been a recognizable name instead of a redlinked user, the reaction from those involved would have been a great deal different. I'd like to think that most might be able to at least imagine the possibility when it's pointed out in grotesque detail. If they can't, then I invite anyone to take some time off, and edit as an IP for a few years, and see if that doesn't change their mind.

    As to a time sink, we'll probably end up wasting an order of magnitude more time here than we would have done if users had simply assumed good faith and followed the dispute resolution process, which is why we do that before we do this. GMG^talk 13:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    What you wrote is dead wrong. You appear to have effectively derailed this which i guess was your goal so congrats. We will end up back here with regard to rtc. Life in community sucks sometimes Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

15. Support Textbook example of source misuse in order to push an agenda. Ripe for topic ban. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
16. Strong oppose - per GreenMeansGo. I'm not seeing diffs of behaviour justifying a topic ban. Looks a lot like editors trying to get rid of an editor whose perceived opinions differ from their's. The word "timesink" tends to be thrown around in such situations. The continuing escalation of this conflict has been fueled by the dismissive approach of those who have disagreed with rtc. I'm also getting real sick of seeing "sealioning" being thrown around like it means something. Cjhard (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
17. Strong opposeAgree with Cjhard. Specifically the original proposal for a TBAN was faulty, using argument from authority Numerous other editors are reverting the changes, including Doc James, who I think we're all aware is medically qualified. I think a topic ban is needed. Assuming the tagging is bad faith seems like a jump to conclusions in violation of WP:AGF, the tags should be treated as a content dispute. The accusations of edit warring have not been supported with any diffs and I don't see edit warring in the page history. A single condescending comment that would normally not warrant even a short block for incivility is in no way a reason for a BAN. Saying someone is a time suck sounds more like impatience than legitimate evidence the person needs to be banned, and the accusations of sealioning are not helpful as sealioning is basically defined as 'bad-faith civil discussion' it seems like accusing someone of sealioning is against WP:AGF. Also rtc has valid points about being told non-informative things thing like "change is not needed", so some confusion on rtc's part is understandable. Also Context: "fertility awareness methods" of birth control are advocated almost exclusively by religious groups, as they have a high failure rate sounds a little like an assumption that one who dissagrees with you in a controversial area is a POV pusher, DS sould be used to remove POV pushers, not shut down discussions. In short, I follow ANI threads sometimes and this one struck me as bad, there may be problems with rtc but the way this ANI has gone I think it would be an abuse of the DS system to TBAN rtc based on this ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternate proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As per WP:BOOMERANG, User:JzG is given a notice that he should refrain from using blocks in a content dispute, refrain from using argument from authority in a content dispute, refrain from starting unsubstantiated WP:ANI discussions with blatantly false accusations to win a content dispute, and refrain from refusing discussion in disputes (for example, he did not reply to even one of my defense arguments).

1. Support as proposer --rtc (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC) I think JzG has been given enough notice above by other editors that he's on the wrong track. For the sake of peaceful xmas I'm withdrawing my support.
2. No blocks were used in a content dispute. I took a position there only after the block, when you continued your nonsense, and thati why this thread exsts: if I was inclined to block while involved, you'd be blocked and this thread would not exist. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   Well, you blocked me for edits in an article in which you are shortly afterwards involved in a content dispute. To me, there is not much plausibility in the claim that your block was entirely unrelated to the content opinion that you now openly advocate. --rtc (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   The key word in this is, of course, afterwards. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   Well, that's quite surprising that you basically say it is not technically a violation. My revert was technically far from being a WP:3RR violation either, yet you blocked me. Apparently you have two kinds of standards of technicality, one for yourself and one for the users you block. --rtc (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose JzG wasn't involved when he made the block, and it was a reasonable block for WP:EW; you may want to read the rules on edit warring more fully. Just because there was no WP:3RR violation doesn't mean that you can't be blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

   JzG blocked me many hours after someone reverted one of my edits. Yes, that's true. I made an edit, someone reverted it, JzG blocked me for edit warring. At that time, I and the reverting user were discussing. As you said there was not a 3RR violation either. It wasn't even a 1RR violation. I did not revert, simple as that. Thus, the block was punitive and disruptive. It certainly wasn't a reasonable block. --rtc (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Knock it off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose Seriously Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose - No substance to this proposal. Purely retributive. Marianna251TALK 01:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   No substance? JzG has based this ANI request on completely false and unsourced claims. He is putting me into the category of religious zealot by claiming that I have been "trying to include special pleading about how (certain birth control methods) are really not a lottery". Later on, he repeated this false and unsourced claim. He charged me with condescension while the diff he provides clearly shows that I merely hinted someone about a surprising mathematical fact. Further, he has shown that he neither actually read my edits, nor actually read the source. He's also accusing me of edit warring, but that's false too -- he blocked me for edit warring after someone else reverted one of my edits, not when I reverted someone else's edits. He did this hours after that revert (again, just to make this clear, not my revert) and while I and the reverting user were discussing. So his ANI request is based on blatantly false accusations, from the first to the last letter. That's pretty brazen. My proposal is to give him a notice, not to block him or something, though I'm pretty sure this sort of behaviour would be more than sufficient for a block. There's definitely some misconduct in opening this request. --rtc (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

7. 'Oppose, this is not the issue. fish&karate 10:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose: JzG is a long-standing and highly experienced administrator, and using blocks to win in a content dispute is a big no-no for an administrator – such an action is potentially enough to lead to desysopping. The only problem is that his involvement in the content came after the block, which means that the accusation is unfounded, so the first part of the proposed notice is factually flawed. The declarations of "false accusations" and "refusing discussion" are highly perspective-dependent – as Guy has said above, his explanations might not have been to some editors' satisfaction, but that is not the same as having failed to provide an explanation as is required under admin accountability. In short, Rtc, JzG can be brusque and short at times, and even a right pain in the posterior, but he continues as an administrator because he usually has support that comes from being correct much of the time, and because he knows the rules and respects them. He has also earned some leeway from the community because he often works in contentious areas where other admins are reluctant to act. In reading above, it is clear that whatever valid points that you have are being buried under behaviour that is disruptive / tendentious and likely to lead to a ban. Either learn to work within consensus and accept that you won't always "win", or stay away from those areas. Proposing sanctions against an admin who is clearly supported by a significant majority in a community discussion only undermines your credibility, wastes time, and increases the chances you will receive a sanction. EdChem (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close

I think this can be closed, I am happy to withdraw the tban proposal, more eyes on the article and talk page seems to be generating some thoughtful discussion. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Return of 71.7.39.119

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP address editor was previously blocked for two weeks, for failure to communicate and persistent creation of apparent hoax drafts. It appears that the editor is back to business, with three new problematic drafts (that I can see). These were currently listed at MfD here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked six months, drafts G3'd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by Codename Lisa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey there,

I've been trying to make some minor edits at Opera (web browser) and have encountered not only some insistent resistance, but also undue personal attacks by User:Codename Lisa:

• The fact that you use "POV" as an adjective demonstrates your ignorance of our policy
• you are foul-mouthed person (which I'll try to forget) who is not above or beyond mischaracterizing facts using bogus or questionable search queries
• The very existence of a connotation is an assumption that, I am afraid, is only in your head
• your question is futile and purposeless – well, unless we assume bad faith in you
• be careful my friend
• your description of Vivaldi is zero-informative

I've tried to avoid taking any of this personally and stay on topic, but I would just say this: this user seems to be of that particular class of editors who quote WP:Policy copiously when is suits them, dwell on minor linguistic details (or ignore broad semantic differences) when they see fit, and use personal insults as part of their normal mode of discourse, without ever losing an ounce of self-righteousness; but you be the judge. For my part I tried to remain on-topic.

Other details:

• I've asked and receives WP:3O, and tried to accommodate it in a subsequent edit.
• User:FleetCommand is involved here as well. He is mentioned somewhere else on this page in relation with canvassing while working with the user who's the subject of this complaint; this user may have canvassed for him this time.

François Robere (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks, just a content dispute and your childish reference to George Carlin. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, really? Well, how does the grammatical properties of "POV" relate to the article's content? What possible relevance does it have?

Each of these criticisms, whether justified or not, could've been phrase without any personal reference: "I don't believe this conforms with the policy"; "I don't see how these results refute the argument"; etc. But instead they're all written in the personal. How's isn't it a recurring personal attack?

As for Carlin - if you read the discussion you see the other editor's tendency to quote from WP:Policy extensively and strictly, including where it doesn't fit, as long as it supports their cause. This was obviously one of these cases, to which I responded by mentioning yet another case where it doesn't apply. Do you disagree? François Robere (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa is an exasperating editor to deal with, but I don't see anything warranting sanctions in the evidence presented. As an aside, pretty much any noun can be used as an adjective in English: see Noun adjunct. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A warning would suffice. One can expect this won't be the last such request. François Robere (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that Codename Lisa should take it easy based on the above-presented snippets. I seem to recall an essay somewhere advising editors to avoid "you-focused" language when making comments or criticism with respect to other editors' contributions because of the risk of those getting taken personally and causing a needless dispute. Unfortunately, I can't find that essay at the moment. Even if François Robere's conduct left something to be desired (which I do not concede), we should strive to work together in spite of it. We've seen complaints regarding Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand quite a lot recently, and while I won't start with the idioms regarding smoke and fire, I will say that in all the cases I recall their behavior has been somewhat below expectations of editors of their experience level. Not so bad as to merit sanctions generally, but not as good as I personally would expect. Just please bear in mind that a pattern of mildly disruptive behavior can result in sanctions even though the individual incidents are not so bad as to merit any sanction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You're probably looking for WP:HOTHEADS. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• CL should probably rein it back a little but I'm not seeing anything here actionable, Both editors should go to the talkpage and discuss whatever issues they have (if one or the other refuses then we have means and ways of forcing a discussion). –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment by involved and named editor, FleetCommand: I'll start from the top.

• "The fact that you use "POV" as an adjective demonstrates your ignorance of our policy". This is a personal comment indeed. But it is an educational and benign one, in the same line as the uw-* templates. You were clearly under the impression that any and all forms of sharp POV is not allowed in Wikipedia, which is not true. They are allowed, as long as they are represented fairly, proportionately and without bias. (Directly from WP:NPOV.) That means they should be represented sharply.
• "you are foul-mouthed person (which I'll try to forget) who is not above or beyond mischaracterizing facts using bogus or questionable search queries". Under any other circumstances, it would have been a personal attack worthy of a block. But this time, it is totally warranted, because you, without provocation, wrote shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits just to prove you can and will say anything. Clearly a case of WP:BOOMERANG here. As for mischaracterizing facts, it appears it was a prophecy that fulfills itself. See below.
• "The very existence of a connotation is an assumption that, I am afraid, is only in your head". You think this is a personal attack? Mischaracterizing facts. She did give you a more benign version of this earlier but you pressed her to give this one by dishonestly writing "I asked you earlier about the importance of context and connotation, and you failed to answer". You asked for it.
• "your question is futile and purposeless". This is a comment on "your question", not you. "well, unless we assume bad faith in you" is complemented with "but I am not there yet", which means she is not assuming bad faith. (Mischaracterizing facts again, are we?) But the full quotation is:

  "That said, FleetCommand had already taken down the word "disgruntled" from the article. Therefore, your question is futile and purposeless – well, unless we assume bad faith in you, in which case the purpose would be to harass FleetCommand; but I am not there yet."

  You see? I offer you a compromise, by giving you the one thing you want most, but you continue the argument nevertheless, file an ANI case and then accuse me of canvassing (which is not always forbidden, by the way). If it is not a sign of bad faith, then I am afraid I know what a sign of bad faith can possibly look like.

I am not dignifying the remaining two with a comment. Even User:Curly Turkey said " I don't see anything warranting sanctions". (Believe me, there is a hell of lot of bad blood between this user and the reported user. A lot!)

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 05:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember who FleetCommand is, but I suppose it's reassuring to know so many care about my existence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. It's nearly Christmas... Kleuske (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I find it curious he's so furiously defending comments that aren't even his own, in a complaint that wasn't lodged against him. It's bad strategy for someone who's been involved in canvassing. Also, it's bad tactics to take comments out of context, especially when the context was already supplied earlier. François Robere (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: Now accusing someone of canvassing without a diff/evidence... that can be seen as a personal attack too. Perhaps drop the shovel? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dude, it's right here on WP:ANI - I even linked to the relevant section in the introduction. So whose shovel is it? François Robere (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: Erm...that section (which has since rolled into the archive, so your link is broken) does not involve FleetCommand, but rather FleetCommand is a Doroogh Goo, an impersonator. I do believe you owe FleetCommand an apology for your allegations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If it is the case, then my apology. I do find it curious that these two, to paraphrase a popular saying, are always seen in the same room together, and their eager mutual support does nothing to forward the discussion. François Robere (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"I find it curious he's so furiously [~snip~] in a complaint that wasn't lodged against him." You accused me of canvassing, you genius! It is punishable by an indefinite block. Codename Lisa is reported here for what? "A warning would suffice." Seriously. This guy has consistently failed to see things for what they are. Can you believe this guy? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion is turning into a circus. Would someone please close it? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure it's ripe for closing yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

{{cot|Completely unrelated contents; any content dispute not related to this topic must be first discussed in the article talk page}}

Eep. What is this? The most important error was incorrect designation of this program as "application". It is, in fact, a utility. Since when are utilities not apps? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned that you told an editor that he had to take his name off his own website to get us to remove it here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

{{Cob}} Unhatted examples of disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-unhatted. FleetCommand, just leave it alone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Or you do what, revered admin? Block me for actually adhering to the policy? You do have a history of one such childish threat, on which you never acted. (Although you did make such a fuss in WP:VP that a third editor had to tell you to stop.)

But yes, I think I will stop. This is Codename Lisa's problem and she is sitting comfortably on her tushy, not taking any of this heat. Plus, SarekOfVulcan just proved that she thinks adhering to WP:OVERSIGHT policy is "disruptive editing" and the she doesn't know the difference between application software and utility software. This is actually precious. What the hell I was thinking, hatting it?

Feel free to leave this discussion open until the sound of the horn. I don't think you or anyone else can secure a sanction against Codename Lisa or me, not because people love us, but because they love themselves first and don't want to give you a precedent to block them when they said "be careful my friend". And come to think of it, even if you did secure a sanction, it won't be the end of the world. Far from it... FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 20:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop it, please, FleetCommand. I think you've said enough, and your Romeo and Juliet-esque feud with Codename Lisa is beginning to cloud your judgement. Thanks for helping in this thread, though. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC) (might close this in a minute!)

Feud? Read it all again, Tom, and the history. Thanks anyway. -- Begoon 10:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, from Mendaliv, though: "We've seen complaints regarding Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand quite a lot recently, and while I won't start with the idioms regarding smoke and fire, I will say that in all the cases I recall their behavior has been somewhat below expectations of editors of their experience level. Not so bad as to merit sanctions generally, but not as good as I personally would expect. Just please bear in mind that a pattern of mildly disruptive behavior can result in sanctions even though the individual incidents are not so bad as to merit any sanction." I don't think CL's sometimes tortured and stilted English helps much, but regardless of that they are, at times, far too combative and unwilling to "drop sticks". Bring back WP:RFC/U; this is exactly what it dealt with well, and ANI can't. -- Begoon 10:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What exacerbates these situations are FleetCommand's unthinking and inflammatory defenses of Codename Lisa. The WP:VPP situation they're referring to is here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_135#Vandalism_or_not:_What_if_an_admin_doesn't_agree_with_the_community?. Editors can decide for themselves who made the fuss. If this is a regular occurrence then the behavior should be looked at. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I really wish I didn't feel obligated to elaborate on my experience during this conflict, but all I intended to do was supply an uninvolved opinion to hopefully resolve a quick discussion and this has been anything but that. This somehow cannot be resolved because the three editors involved in this conflict appear to enjoy insulting each other or rambling about irrelevant nonsense instead of focusing on the topic. This confusingly cyclical debate is mostly about one sentence in a See also section that describes a Wikipedia article, and it should not be difficult to quickly establish a description that's relatively agreed upon and avoids neutrality issues and original research because the original problem is quite obvious and can be easily corrected.

I have not interacted with Codename Lisa, FleetCommand, and François Robere beyond Talk:Opera (web browser), but this is preposterous. Both power~enwiki and Ahecht have now also offered completely reasonable alternatives, but instead of suggesting simple tweaks or just signing off on options, editors involved continue to dick around and even respond rudely to the three of us. This should be very far below the expected conduct of experienced editors. Rhinopias (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This comment is a gross misrepresentation of status quo. Ahecht's sole comment met with unanimous acclaim; power~enwiki met with "Agreed. No arguments there" and "the offer to deploy a summary-style coverage, however, is ... tempting." —Codename Lisa (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I concede that "rudely to the three of us" was unwarranted, but I personally experienced coarseness in—what I demonstrated this situation to be in my comment above—an unnecessarily convoluted discussion that some seemingly had little intention to resolve. I don't feel I have the authority, as I implied with "I have not interacted", to determine whether or not this belongs at ANI. However, I am wondering whether or not you feel it's appropriate that it took three attempts of reasonable suggestions from uninvolved editors for this very simple issue to generate any form of agreement rather than squabbling. Rhinopias (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Hello, everyone. This is Codename Lisa. I did not want to come here for a long time because ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process and I do not want to play the "block the disputing editor" game. Instead, I did something completely different: I offered the disputing parties to take the issue to Mediation Committee. (Revision 816288573.) There, nobody has the luxury of being uncivil, even though mediators don't block anybody for it. So far, I have only received this reaction: 816311106. Feel free to make up your own mind about it.

It appears this thread has run its course and now has changed subject to "I don't mean to say 'no smoke without fire', but we see FleetCommand and Codename Lisa a lot together." Yes, you have, perhaps as far back as 2014, when Matthiaspaul accused me of meatpuppetry with FleetCommand in a discussion that I was not even present in it! As The Bushranger said above, this instance is also one of those phantom cases. In other cases, I have acted completely differently. Whereas FleetCommand received both bans and blocks, I gained new friends. In May this year, I reported FleetCommand and caused him to receive a block. One tangible case is given above: The case of User:Neil and the question of "Vandalism or not: What if an admin doesn't agree with the community?" This links shows you how FleetCommand and NeilN behaved. Well, this is how I behaved: NeilN and I parted amicably and I complied with his order. I am not proud of what I did in that affair, despite the fact that I was facing abject vandalism.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Update on the discussion: We have reached a consensus about one of the disputed sentences. I have offered a compromise in the form of me totally withdrawing any objections to either of the disputed versions and neither support nor oppose either. That should end my role in the discussion permanently. After all, all dispute resolutions are about compromises: You give a little and take a little, and all the while stay calm.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[URGENT] Can anyone stop this IP?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can anyone stop 103.26.87.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who is currently going on a rampage adding a category Indian Muslims to hundreds of biographical articles without any consideration for the person's actual ethnicity? Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, such a category seems to violate WP:BLPCAT. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The speed between edits looks like they could also possibly be an unlicenced bot. They're doing 3-4 edits a minute for a sustained period of time. Joseph2302 (talk)

The IP has been blocked. Hastiness (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked the IP and asked them to explain their editing on their talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RevDel request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin do a RevDel on Jacoby Ellsbury please? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RevDel request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin do a RevDel on Jacoby Ellsbury please? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Biantez

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I have come across several unreferenced articles by Biantez, or ones with only external links (I have messaged Biantez to see if by external links they meant sources, but had no response). As you can see at User talk:Biantez#Sources and User talk:Biantez#Sources again, I have politely tried to engage Biantez is conversation about this, as have others at User talk:Biantez and User talk:Biantez/1. It does not appear that Biantez has ever responded to a message on their page. I have pointed out that WP:Communication is required, but none was forthcoming. I also tried moving an unreferenced article that I was worried might have copyvio issues to draftspace and asked Biantez to work on it there and resubmit, but Biantez just moved it back.

Biantez has been blocked twice before, including last year for repeated addition of unsourced material [122]. I don't think the message went through - I can't find the archive of the last ANI. I would like Biantez to agree that in future they will respond to messages and will only add information with a source. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the earlier ANI thread; poor participation, no action taken. But I genuinely think his behavior needs serious evaluation now. He seems to never responded to any talkpage message despite litany of serious complaints about creating unsourced articles, adding unsourced content, copyvio, editwarring and many other things. He just seems indifferent. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As the user has never used a talk page to communicate, but has shown they know talk pages exist and what they are for (at least in part) by adding dab-project tags after moves and, most demonstratively, establishing an archive for their talk page despite never responding on it, has been continually warned and asked to communicate but has never done so going back to 2009, and leaving aside "okay, you're new" notes has received warnings about unsourced material since at least 2014, I have gone ahead and indef blocked, as communication is required and their obvious refusal to do so has reached the point of being disruptive. If they start communicating in response, then any admin who's satisfied that hailing channels are open can unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, The Bushranger. Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Yahya Talatin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yahya Talatin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• BatteryIncluded's user talk page before the section was removed
• Lee Smolin article talk page before the section was removed
• Lee Smolin article talk page after the section was rewritten
• Lee Smolin article talk page after the section was written the third time

This user appears to have spent much of the past 3 years soapboxing on talk pages. I recently encountered them on BatteryIncluded's talk page and have since been trying in earnest to explain that Wikipedia is not a forum for posting fringe theories and quantum woo. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, they seem to be missing the point entirely. I've placed a warning on their talk page but it also seems to have missed the mark. I honestly think that the user means well, and simply believes that Wikipedia is missing some 'important information'. I don't think we're anywhere near the sanctions stage just yet, but I do think Yaḥyā may benefit from other users weighing in, so that further disruptive behaviour can be avoided.

Please see the discussion on my talk page for further details. Thanks. nagualdesign 21:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I plead guilty as charged, but what info isn't presented here, is that I have evolved by considerably shortening my replies. Please read my comment in Smolin talkpage [123] which is the subject of the dispute. That Wikipedia comment was an analogy, to explain him in simple language that the information (regarding black holes) which is being talked about, concerned those of the systems, not their inner dynamics. I'll accept any restrictions imposed upon me. I just want someone to reply in Smolin talkpage, having invested much time to be as clear and concise as possible. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that user's page gives me the impression he is "fighting" a world-wide cover up of The Truth, suggesting that Wikipedia is collaborating with scientists to suppress the Truth. I have come across some users like that, and the prognosis is not good. He has been explained the dynamics, to no avail. Action may be required. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, true, I reacted, but see I removed everything from Smolin talkpage and started all new. Can you check my comment in the talkpage and comment? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And no, I didn't accuse scientists, I was referring to physicists, and only in this particular situation. The context is that a biological concept was being introduced and it would be expected that physicists would resist to it. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, just to point out, that what I have reported in that talkpage, is common knowledge for physicists. It's not as if I was saying something foreign. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nagual, I won't waste either of our time, just propose a restriction and I will take it. Just throwing this before the holidays was unexpected. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't want you to face any restrictions, I'm just asking you to follow policy, as I have stated several times already. You obviously haven't read any of the guidelines you were provided with links to. I suggest you take the time to read them, and follow them. Easy peasy. And get down from your soapbox, obviously. nagualdesign 22:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The crux of this endless soapboxing is two edits. First Yaḥyā removed two sentences from the Lee Smolin article, then I restored and re-wrote them in an attempt to clarify things and address Yaḥyā's concerns. Simple, I would have thought. Apparently not. nagualdesign 22:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I think I was clear that information here doesn't mean all information. I provided you the analogy in simple common day language. Systems information doesn't represent all information. Physicists know that check uncertainty principle. For physicists this might be obvious but the commoner would be mislead here. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

They're talking about quantum information. But this isn't the place to discuss such things, since Wikipedia is NOT a forum. Please just take my previous suggestion (proffered here for the third time) and refrain from trying to edit articles in subjects you know little or nothing about, and stick to editing articles in subjects that you are well-versed with or which do not require any expertise. Even the most accomplished editors spend a lot of time fixing typos and such things. It would be very helpful to the project if you could do that, rather than this. I've said all that I wish to say now. Enough is enough. nagualdesign 22:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

But you are agreeing with me now! Quantum information means uncertainty principle (compare with quantum encryption)! Please go there and reread what I wrote. I see you have Einstein picture on your userpage... would you accept his point of view that there is info which is missing there? Quantum information can never be all information, because it says little about the position and behavior of individual particles. My analogy was just a simplification of the uncertainty principle. I fail to see why my knowledge or lack of invalidate what I am saying. At worst, if I am a total ignorant, that would simply mean that I am not tainting anything by my opinions. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, that I already in several occasions explained why I prefer editing talkpages. More freedom, also less potential for my contributions starting edit warring. It's a more stable place. I don't see why this should be used against me. I'm more interested to provide contexts and others are free to use the material later. Besides my English prevents me from contributing in the mainspace considerably. I accept to reduce the size of my replies (which I have already started). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I shortened even more, and even concluded with the anthropological black whole. Now it's so simple that I think a 5 year old will understand it. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read through the past three years of posts, but I see that the subject editor does seem to be saying that their primary objective here is to post their ideas on talk pages. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. Also, I have read their postings above, and they make no sense. If you don't know enough English to edit in article space, then edit a Wikipedia in your own language. I think that the subject editor has made the case that they are not here to contribute to maintenance of the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I realize that there's a lot to read, and I'd recommend against wasting your time on it. I've tried to summarize things on my talk page for anyone who wishes to spend just a few minutes on this. In short, Yaḥyā has made nearly 1,400 edits since joining Wikipedia in March 2015, but has only made 58 edits in article space (to just 30 articles by my count), many of which appear to have been reverted, and the rest have been talk page edits. Since I opened this discussion here Yaḥyā has made 22 more edits to Talk:Lee Smolin, changing the section heading for a third time (breaking links to that section) and tweaking the wording continuously, and it still reads like gibberish to me. Perhaps if I was 5 years old I may find it convincing, but I'm 40 and know enough about physics to know that it's absolute tosh. But more to the point, none of it has any relation whatsoever to the edit Yaḥyā made to the article, and their monologue has moved increasingly off-topic. nagualdesign 04:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It's even pointless to answer to this... yes I did all of this! I'm ignorant and everything. Please propose my punishment! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have that much edits in talkpages, because most of the time I have edited on namespace, not only I was reverted, but I was accused with about any kind of accusations (I wouldn't even dare posting them here, but I can provide proof). Not once I have responded in kind!!! Including the person who has reported me, who in this very same report posted a link on cognitive bias, which concerns mentally ill people (and I called him Friend). Check for yourself! I do see that they're just human, like me. Besides, those number of edits say about nothing, since I have evolved since those edits. But I will always prefer editing in talkpages, because here is where I feel more comfortable. Always in fear for the next thing coming out of nowhere. Just go in Lee Smolin talkpage, and read it for yourself and see how I have removed anything, about anything which can be considered as controversial, to the point that the language can be incorporated in pop music, and no one would even notice it's about Black Holes. Again, please, just tell me the punishment for that, and I will execute it. At least then I could leave freely for the holidays in peace. And again, I have no hard feeling here! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh and Robert, I have no my own language, I suck in every language. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Just check below, and see how he is justifying it! See this is the kind of reaction. You want more evidence one example with another user here [124] see how I answered from the beginning to the end, with all the attacks and slanders I didn't answer in kind. That the discussion continued after I have quoted directly from the said source, showing that it doesn't even say what is claimed it was stating (and you wonder why I write that long?). She just ignored it, not even addressing it! I could have reported her, I even removed my answer here [125] where I was showing that those were misconducts! I ended leaving by even apologizing! I can go on by quoting everything the user who reported me above, with all the accusations he leveled against me. But I wouldn't! Because all of this is pointless. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on this, the link you're talking about was to Dunning–Kruger effect, which has nothing to do with mental illness. The implication is that you don't know or understand enough about quantum physics to realize how little you know and understand. You don't even demonstrate a high school-level of understanding of basic physics or logic, or a proper grasp of the English language, yet you are trying to somehow prove Leonard Susskind wrong about his assessment of Smolin's fecund universes theory and the problem of information transfer through black holes. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about - that is a fact - and the fact that you think you do exemplifies the Dunning–Kruger effect. That's nothing to be ashamed of though and I wasn't being derogatory. The vast majority of people don't understand quantum physics, and even Richard Feynman famously said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." I'm sorry if I offended you, that certainly wasn't my intention, but I stand by everything I've written here. nagualdesign 05:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No I don't...! I'm ignorant, I don't grasp English, OK! But yet what I wrote in Smolin talkpage, everyone even a child will understand. While most don't get a clue of what is written in those papers. What would remain in 20 years from now! Most won't still understand a yota of it all and PLUS they will be invalidated. Yet, what I wrote in Smolin talk-page, will still make sense for a 5 year old boy. That will overlive my credibility or anything else. You have yet to answer to my comment about Quantum Information! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "a link on cognitive bias, which concerns mentally ill people" - Um...this alone makes me reach for the link to WP:Competence is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm incompetent, or any other better suited words! Do propose something! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I came here looking for some help in getting through to you, since I have failed in that regard, and all you have done is demonstrate that you're incorrigible. I had hoped that somebody with endless patience who is skilled at mentoring might approach you and help you, but you haven't exactly made that an appealing or worthwhile prospect. By your own admission you've made little or no constructive contributions to the project and have every intention of continuing to stick to editing talk pages. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if you'd demonstrated at the very least a minimum understanding of what is expected in talk page discussions, and an understanding and acceptance of Wikipedia policies, but you haven't done that. Since you also, by your own admission, "suck at language" even trivial edits like correcting typos and grammar are probably beyond you. I'm sorry to have to say this, because despite your inadequacies you probably do mean well, but I recommend you simply stop editing altogether and stick to reading articles instead. You have a great deal to learn and Wikipedia is a great place for that, but if you just want to talk to people about Wikipedia articles you should just join an online forum. I'm not sure what else to say. nagualdesign 06:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Even those are beyond me! What you propose, Wikipedia exclusion? Since even that I can't do! So is that what you are proposing? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I just retired, I hope this will satisfy everyone. I can go on with the Holidays without being bothered with what new thing will fall on my head. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry about all this, Yaḥyā. Please take the first door on the right. If it's any consolation I do think you'll be more comfortable there. Sincerely, nagualdesign 06:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC) →

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spottedfeather

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Spottedfeather (talk · contribs) [126] [127] vandalizes articles because they follow reliable sources which do not agree with WP:THETRUTH. [128] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked for one week for this personal attack, but have not investigated further. Any admin is free to modify as they deem appropriate on further scrutiny without needing to seek my approval. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The user making another personal attack within their unblock request is not an encouraging sign.[129] I support the block; and if they continue to make additional attacks, I would support extending the block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dedemao -- threat of murder and vandalism?

Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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

---

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

As a stalker, I came upon this diff by Dedemao (talk · contribs). I'm not sure if this requires RevDel or Block, but it looks like the user threatened that they would kill an editor and "vandalize every single page". It's been a few days, but it may warrant some attention. Pinging @S.A. Julio: as that happened on his talk page. BytEfLUSh | Talk 04:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Indef blocked and edit revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Bachcell POV-pushing and canvassing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yet again Bachcell has engaged in disruptive behavior and hopefully the community will act on it this time. Bachcell has created a WP:POINTy article, Jesus Fabian Gonzalez, in response multiple efforts to push an agenda at October 2017 Northern California wildfires [130][131]. At various venues he has accused editors (presumably me included) of censorship and whitewashing, while falsely pushing the POV that this person is related to terrorism and arson [132][133][134][135][136]. Most recently, he has canvassed an editor he believes will be sympathetic to his agenda [137] (note how he mentions I am the creator of the AFD).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

72 hour block for the blatant canvassing, three month topic ban from all BLP edits on subjects related to terrorism as this isn't Bachcell's first rodeo with this specific topic area. [138] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canvassing in AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It has come to my attention that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) canvassed another editor to a AfD discussion in order to force the outcome to be "no consensus". The AfD was for the Lizette Parker article here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lizette_Parker. He canvassed another editor on his talk page who ultimately supported his view. [139] --Rusf10 (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see canvassing there. That is posting an entirely neutral notice on the talk page of an editor who has an interest in the subject. If he had said "I think you would want to keep [article]..." or "Please help at [AfD]", then it might be, but see WP:APPNOTE: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: (...) On the user talk pages of concerned editors." Pinging editors interested on a topic is a common and ordinary courtesy in an AfD. Also note the supposedly-canvassed vote was six days before the AfD was closed, which is hardly "canvassing...in order to force the outcome". I'm sorry that the AfD didn't close the way you wanted it to, but such is life on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I just thought it was strange because that user never edited the Lizette Parker and the message was left only after he "voted" here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eleanor_Kieliszek So my question is, what would cause RAN to believe he would be concerned?--Rusf10 (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Meh. If a deletionist were to leave a message on the talk page of someone who'd voted delete on a similar article, even if it was neutrally worded, would people be just as OK with that? I suspect it would be seen differently. Reyk _YO! 09:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You'd be dissapointed, then, because it wouldn't be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Why would you think it'd disappoint me to see the same behaviour treated the same way regardless of the editor's inclusion or deletion leanings? I'd be happier actually. But I have observed that that is not the case. Reyk _YO! 11:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Canvassing leads off by stating that "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." For more specific details, see WP:APPNOTE, which states that "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:... On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" In this edit, Rusf10 could not have been any clearer in stating that the efforts to delete articles about Teaneck mayors was part of a coordinated and connected effort. As Malik Shabazz participated actively at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek, including as the second participant in that discussion and having expressed there a strong opinion about the nominator's being "eager to delete articles about New Jersey mayors", it appears that this is a case of the kind of appropriate notification explicitly allowed by WP:CANVASS. Alansohn (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"coordinated and connected effort", that's some conspiracy theory you have there. Who did I coordinate with?

"having expressed there a strong opinion about the nominator's being "eager to delete articles about New Jersey mayors" And so, if I contacted someone who had expressed a strong opinion about deleting articles about small-town mayors, then that would have been okay???--Rusf10 (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP user signing other people's posts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, this IP user is going around randomly signing other people's posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.17.88.180

See, for example the following (among many other examples):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.208.24.19&diff=prev&oldid=816752849
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:122.178.76.124&diff=prev&oldid=816752953
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi&diff=prev&oldid=816753081
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:73.56.122.176&diff=prev&oldid=816755057
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A02:C7F:3638:7600:4DB7:7C67:E957:C7D2&diff=prev&oldid=816792715
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A00:1028:96D4:842E:F583:AD0C:3D22:E468&diff=prev&oldid=816793033
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A%C5%9Fa%C4%9F%C4%B1kara%C3%B6ren,_Kazan&diff=prev&oldid=816753224
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Actors1&diff=prev&oldid=816793506

AfD hero (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Real estate web site on Sandpoint article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A single-purpose account user, Sandpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), continues to add an eponymous real estate company web site to the article Sandpoint, Idaho. I'm seeking a user block or page protection.

Diffs: [140], [141], [142], [143]

Thanks. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@GetSomeUtah: This is new user with only 4 edits so far. When you reverted him you should have welcome him with caution about spamming or directly left warning message on their talkpage. Now his last edit is over six hours, not sure if he'll ever come back, of will even continue adding the link –Ammarpad (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:UAA for clear-cut username problems like these. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 10:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gamblers Anonymous

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At the article Gamblers Anonymous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there have been repeated additions of phone numbers and meeting times by Gacm792013 (talk · contribs). It all appears to be good faith additions to try to direct users to help lines; but the article already has a link to official websites which themselves have phone numbers to various official support lines. The user has received multiple warnings; but seems unwilling to respond on their own talk page, nor have they posted on the article talk page. I was hoping that someone here may be able to get through to them; or that just the notice of this discussion taking place might get their attention. Otherwise, they appear to be heading towards a block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please block Gacm792013 (talk · contribs) this user, they added unsourced (by reverting me) after a final warning, so I gave them an edit war warning and said I was giving them 1 more chance but made it clear that I would ask an admin to block them, but I was reverted again. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility by Alansohn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have tried repeatedly to warn Alansohn against incivility at AfD discussions. He and I often disagree about whether certain articles should be deleted or kept. While I respect his right to share his opinion, his continued personal attacks are unacceptable. He frequently takes it personally when I nominate a New Jersey-related page for deletion (and in particular any from his hometown of Teaneck, NJ). I have most recently tried to deal with him by leaving a nicely worded message on his talk page User talk:Alansohn to ask him to stop. His response was to accuse me of harassment and stalking him. I am not stalking him, it is just impossible to do anything with New Jersey-related pages without his involvement (I think he's edited every single one). He seems to demonstrate WP:OWNERSHIP over the topic and I believe that his led to the proliferation of unnecessary articles because no one else wants to deal with trying to remove them. When an article is up for deletion, rather than expalin his disagreement, he immediately jumps in to attack me. He usually does so with a condescending tone and in one case called me incompetent. I understand he has had similar problems with other users in the past and this seems to be a pattern for him.
He are some examples of his incivility: Assumption of bad faith and use of profanity: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Howard_Jachter&diff=816799383&oldid=816797741
Incivility, Condescension, and other personal attacks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montgomery_Upper_Middle_School_(3rd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=816380400
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maryanne_Connelly&diff=prev&oldid=816019688
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Dougherty&diff=prev&oldid=815891423
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eleanor_Kieliszek&diff=prev&oldid=815719749
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Zanker&diff=prev&oldid=815171255
He's also told me that I should be banned a couple times times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Zanker&diff=prev&oldid=813731020
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Vaccaro&diff=prev&oldid=813729944
I've tried to direct him towards civility guidelines, but to no avail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Vaccaro&diff=813739165&oldid=813729944
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Zanker&diff=815175305&oldid=815172116
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maryanne_Connelly&diff=816024387&oldid=816024346

I may have missed a few, but I think there's enough to prove my point.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Assumption of bad faith"? In this edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Zanker Rusf10 made the rather explicitly abusive threat that "I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list.". Over the past few weeks, he has been rather shamelessly violating WP:HARASS by following through on that threat, starting with mayors and now working through other people on the exact same list that he targeted in your threat. The comment at this edit is the slap on the head realization that the only reason he's targeted Howard Jachter and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven Weil for deletion is because they both happen to be on the List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey, as is Eleanor_Kieliszek, Bill Zanker and a total of a dozen articles he's targeted in some sort of bizarre revenge plot.
  It would appear to me that trying to delete articles merely because the person has come connection to a place that I have connection to is in and of itself a violation of the basic norms of WP:CIVILITY. I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm quoting the exact bad faith threat straight from the horse's mouth. Alansohn (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

My point there was an inexplicable number of articles were created for people from that town that would not have been otherwise created if they were from somewhere else (because they fail notability). It's not a threat. If that's a threat , then what do you call your suggestion that I be banned?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That was good advice about which you've failed to get the point.  You should have been listening to Alansohn.  Instead, you have put out the idea at ANI that you be banned.  Editors who put out the idea of their own banning are more likely to get banned than if they keep quiet.  The problem here is that you've become obsessed with AfD while remaining clueless about the basic definition of GNG notability and the policy WP:Alternatives to deletion, combined with a refusal to accept WP:BEFORE as good practice.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• See also section below by the same OP in the same topic area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk disruption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hastiness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring at User talk:Volunteer Marek. It is a young account, so I posted at their talk page to advise them of WP:OWNTALK. They reverted my post and continued the DE, even requesting full protection of VM's talk page at RFPP. At least a short block seems necessary, and I think a WP:NOTHERE case could be made for a longer one. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please check their edit summaries. Like this one [144]. Or this one. Etc. Volunteer Marek 08:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please DO NOT BLOCK ME!!!!!!! Hastiness (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for a week. Hopefully their attitude will have improved when the block expires. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Chadmccoy47

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Chadmccoy47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's hard to tell if this user is new to Wikipedia or not, but there seems to be unusual activity coming out of it. The first post it made was saying that Aaron Rodgers does not play for the Cleveland Browns, and I never made any posts or statements about it either. Furthermore, if you look at the user's talk page, it says that Aaron plays for the Browns. I also left a warning on the user's talk page to make sure it does not post spam or talk to strangers, because this site does not condone anything like this. If any of you admins could please look into this, I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Slasher405 (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors, even when using a pseudonym, are people, not things, so please do not use "it" in regard to them. If you want a non-gendered pronoun. you can use singular "they", which is now accepted by many style books, including that of The New York Times.

For those who do not follow American NFL football, Aaron Rodgers is a very-high-profile quarterback who famously plays for the Green Bay Packers, although he's currently on the Injured Reserve list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little at a loss as to what you're "turning in" (your words) Chadmccoy47 for. What policy did they violate, in your opinion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

An IP editor added the strange comment to User talk:Chadmccoy47. Chadmccoy47 has only made one edit, to Slasher405's talk page. This is a silly triviality that does not call for action by an administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undisclosed paid editing by Sustainability12345

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sustainability12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a very silent editor per my attempts to discuss with them on their talk page, has attempted to circumvent AfC by starting Bryan McClelland in mainspace, see Draft:Bryan Benitez McClelland. The current article, thanks to Hariboneagle927, looks okay, but the editor is hellbent on keeping this article seem very promotional ([145]). This is clearly undisclosed paid editing, but if not, the editor is WP:NOTHERE. AfC should not have been circumvented, but I don't know if the article should be deleted or what action to take. See my COIN post as well, which is a pretty useless noticeboard, half the stuff I post there doesn't get a single reply. !dave 08:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Article does look OK right now, and sufficient notability seems established (chucked out a few more un/badly sourced items). If the editor desists from fluffing it up further, I think it should pass muster. No idea about the COIN issue, sorry. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Submitting article to AfC is voluntary not compulsory. Any user who is technically able to create pages on main space can do so without AFC if they so wish. Promotional concern is separate thing, though. Now, the only way to delete that article is via AfD (though not sure it will be deleted), as it contains many valid claims which can support notability. If you think, it should be deleted then you can nominate it–Ammarpad (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Well, I was not particularly sure. !dave 08:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"This is clearly undisclosed paid editing, but if not..." If you use a "but if not" qualifier, then your "clearly is" claim is doubtful. In any case, you should provide evidence, not assertion. Do you have any? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, uh, CU blocked as part of paid editing sock farm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by My name is not dave (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible behavioral problems at 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#Tyre column irrelevant

• Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#Tyre column irrelevant
• 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing conflict on a discussion thread with one user seemingly taking control of the matter and thinking he has the authority to declare it closed when consensus has not been obtained. Looking for senior editors/admin viewpoints on general behavior and actions of all users from a neutral perspective. MetalDylan (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I've dropped a warning to the editor in question that he needs to be more mindful of policy in discussion. That said, you have not notified the editor in question that you have started an ANI topic on his behavior, as is required and as is stated in bold in the orange box above the edit window, so I have done it for you; in the future, please remember to notify people you are bringing to ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• @The Bushranger: on the talk page of the F1 article you state, "your contention that asking for a policy-based argument 'is a joke...the most absurd sentence I've ever read in my entire time on Wikipedia.' is very concerning with regards to how it indicates you regard Wikipedia policies." I feel you may have misunderstood my point. I was replying to this statement: "I think policy-based arguments are are what we need to see, and I haven't seen any here yet that support redundant columns in tables." This is an insanely specific use case we are dealing with; to expect there is a policy that not only addresses it, but explicitly allows it, is absurd. Show me a policy that explicitly supports the use of the word "policy" and I will gladly admit I am wrong. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Wicka wicka (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Basically, if MetalDylan wants to change something significant about the page, the responsibility is on HIM to prove that it is against policy. Not on me to magically find a policy that addresses, again, an extremely specific topic. That's not how this works. That's not how anything works. There isn't a law on the books that says "it is legal to not murder people." Wicka wicka (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping three comments in quick succession: is filibustering a thing on Wikipedia? Wicka wicka (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)In that case, you honestly could have chosen much better wording in your reply. And the point is in fact true: WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good argument to make, at a deletion discussion or anywhere else. To be fair, WP:ILIKEIT isn't either, but that doesn't change the fact that you (or for that matter, any other editor) can not say "answer my question or this discussion is over" in an ongoing discussion. We don't always get what we want on Wikipedia, even when it seems pure WP:COMMONSENSE, and in cases where Inter editium enim silent leges the change from the status quo (which, as far as I can tell in this case, is for the column in question to be present in all season articles, for consistency, relevant or not) is the one that needs to be defended and backed by whatever policy is closest, instead of demanding that other editors find something that "explicitly allows" what you're trying to change. Remember that mocking someone (or giving the appearance of mocking someone, which, given this is the Internet and tone is impossible to discern, is functionally indistuingishable) in a debate here pretty much torpedoes your argument in the court of public opinion, and that sometimes, it's best to just take a deep breath, push back the computer chair, and go get a nice cup of tea instead of pushing the 'publish changes' button on the catharic ranting you just wrote out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spitefully voting against the supposedly rude guy, even if it makes the article worse, is a horrible way to run an encyclopedia. I understand what you're saying about my tone, and I sincerely apologize, and I will do better in the future, but still - it should be irrelevant to the question at hand. I find myself agreeing with unbearable people all the time, solely because it makes Wikipedia better. We should not lose sight of that goal. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) All Wicka wicka does is shout at and belittle editors. See Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#"Triple header", where they're trying to claim a consensus based on 2 people's comments. This is frankly ridiculous, NPA has been breached against both me & Prisonermonkeys. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you accusing someone of spitefully !voting against your proposal or are you referring to yourself saying you accidentally did that and now recognise how wrong you were? If it's the later, good of you to acknowledge that, avoid it in the future. If it's the former, please provide some evidence this has happened or withdraw the accusation as it'a serious personal attack without evidence, warranting a block IMO. I took a look at the discussion yesterday and all I saw was a bunch of people disagree about what made the article better; along with a people especially you who had personalised the dispute way too much and were too desperate to get their way (but still no evidence this was in bad faith). Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note: It also appears Wicka Wicka is one revert away from violating WP:3RR, all the while ironically lecturing others about edit warring. Wicka, you really need to calm down, and talk calmly and rationally about this. Rambling on and on, both here and there, with all this hyperbole isn't helping things. (Likening a simple content dispute to "the legality of murder" isn't going to help convince anyone.) I won't take any action here, as I've had disputes with the editor in question in some of my subject areas, but that being said, from that, I can attest that there is a pattern of issues here - Wicka Wicka, when not getting his way, often devolves into disruptive comments like this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not likening a content dispute to murder, dude, I was just giving an example of how rules work...my point was purely that you define things that are against the rules, not a comprehensive list of everything that is allowed. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I object to any editor who claims that other editors "have problems" with another editor's practice as a means of trying to force that editor into backing down. Especially when they offer no evidence to support the claim. If you have a problem with the way I edit, write me up at ANI. But I should warn you that you're wasting your time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

IMO Wicka wicka is now verging on WP:PA and possibly needs a time-out to go enjoy the holidays or something, it's only Wikipedia after all and it just feels like the dude is about to have an aneurysm. MetalDylan (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't appreciate you baselessly accusing me of personal attacks and then insulting saying "the dude is about to have an aneurysm." Wicka wicka (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not an insult. That's hyperbole based on the tone of your arguments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's pretty clear that Wicka wicka has a very clear idea of what he wants the article to be and is refusing to accept any alternative. That's a pretty counter-productive way of editing. A consensus isn't a consensus if there is only one consensus that you're willing to accept before the discussion has even begun. I also find it quite ironic that he is so quick to accuse others of only wanting their version of the article to be the accepted version — especially since the discussion was perfectly harmonious until he came along. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Defamatory attack

This comment, or opinion by user user:Skylax30 is overtly defamatory; it is a reputation attack against myself as both a person, and a Wikipedian. Skylax30 has turned the dispute on the notability of Panayiotis Diamadis in Greek-language WP [146], [147], [148], cf. the Greek article talk page, and Talk:Panayiotis Diamadis as well -an article he has recently created there- to a staightforward insult, and personal attack against myself in the English-language WP. ——Chalk19 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It does seem the Greek Equivalent of a Uncle Tom is what is being stated.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Uncle Theseus", say? EEng 02:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's more thant that. Naming me a "self-hater Greek" is a personal insult; not of course the second part -"Greek"- but the "self-hater" part. It is a totally improper comment conserning my personality, or my personal condition, comming -in addition- from a person who is a complete stranger to me. Don't you think so, Serialjoepsycho? "The term self-hatred is used infrequently by psychologists and psychiatrists, who would usually describe people who hate themselves as persons with low self-esteem. Self-hatred and shame are important factors in some or many mental disorders, especially disorders that involve a perceived defect of oneself (e.g. body dysmorphic disorder)" (WP article on self-hatred). ——Chalk19 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not more than that it is just that. Uncle Tom is highly derogatory epithet. He's calling you a selfhating Greek servile to genocide deniers. As such this is highly inappropriate and bigoted. However, it has nothing to do with the psychological straw you are grasping at. Basically he's saying that you are a Greek who is working with modern Greek Genocide Deniers.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Either way Serialjoepsycho, it's worse than it looked to me in the first place. ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's wholly unacceptable, yes; a NPA-4 warning has been issued. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a bit of friendly advice; it didn't apply in this case, but try to shy away from using adjectives such as "defamatory" or "libelous" to describe comments by other editors. Administrators tend to be particularly sensitive to these terms since they can be considered a step away from an implied legal threat.--WaltCip (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User Chalk19 has falsified what I posted in the discussion. I wrote about "self-hater Greeks" (plural) which is something general and a term frequently used in political discussions. The above comment about psychiatric use, is completely irrelevant and refers to persons who hate themselves. He transfered here the phrase after changing the plural to singular ("Greek") giving a completely different meaning to my post. The same trick he did in the discussion of the greek article 22:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC). @The Bushranger: is requested to look again the discussion of the article [149]. If editing another user's post is prohibited by WP rules, he is requested to warn user Chalk19. Claims of "personal attack" are foundless. PS, I don't know how to use the notification to the user involved (Chalk19). Someone is requested to do it, please. --Skylax30 (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ιt is not a falsification. The comment by Skylax30 not only includes myslef among the "self-hater Greeks", but clearly makes me an example of this kind (?) of "Greeks". So, "whatever" (=meaning what? "great" perhaps, or -as it implies- "bad", "crazy", "treacherous" etc.?) someone may have "heared about self-hater Greeks who oppose the recognition of Greek Genocides" is -according to Skylax30, "true", because of me. Lately in Greece a lot is "heared" publicly in similar cases, and some people are even verbaly threatened. Skylax30 a couple of hours before writing the above comment, had opened a similar case against users of the Greek-language WP, using a milder language for the moment. ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

PS. Skylax30, you know how to notify The Bushranger, as you have done, but you don't know how to notify me? ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Skylax30 He didn't falsify what you said he provided a diff and everyone can see exactly what you said. Are you suggesting that you suddenly decided to start talking about Self hating Greek genocide deniers but you weren't calling Chalk9 or anyone else one? The both of you should avoid bringing your Greek Wikipedia fights over to here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Serialjoepsycho. At least I am not the one who started this topic here.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Skylax30: Υou are the only one who used (against me) a "highly derogatory epithet", "highly inappropriate and bigoted", "wholly unacceptable". Υou are the only one who didn't accept this, and tried to deny your action through your "falsification" theory. ——Chalk19 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure how relevant the article Panayiotis Diamadis itself is to this conflict, but somewhat, surely, since the conflict turns on "recognition" of Diamadis as notable enough for an article. It's a really bad article. Just saying. Created by an SPA who has made three edits in toto. It lists all Diamadis' four degrees from the University of Sydney and lots of other CV details, including presenting at redlinked conferences, being "one of the notable persons who criticized the film The Water Diviner", and a good deal of text about Australian servicemen's memoirs... no sorry, the last-mentioned are not even CV details, they're simply not about Diamadis at all. I suppose the people who have added these details believed that a sufficiently large number of non-notable/irrelevant factoids will add up to notability, but that is not correct. I've stubbified it, leaving the template about dubious notability, because that certainly still applies. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC).

This is not the place to discuss the notability of the person. For your information, the Greek article contains more material and sources, many of them in Greek. You will not understand this conflict unless you are a Greek and you understand the divides of the greek society. Cheers.--Skylax30 (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It's all Greek to me. EEng 21:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Careful, now... -- Begoon 06:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ekrud5/sandbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please restore this sandbox, it is a student assignment for an educational project ([150]). The administrator who deleted it refuses to restore it, saying it is bad quality and too promotional. That may likely be the case, but I am the course instructor, and I will judge it myself. Sandboxes are safe places for new editors including students to write their content and I thought they are exempt from speedy deletion; and even if this is not the case, one contested, such content should be deleted and taken to AfD. In any case, WP:G11 does not apply here since it applies "to pages that are exclusively promotional", and even a very bad student draft has more going for it that being a pure promotion (I am pretty sure nobody is paying said student to promote whatever it is that that they are writing :P). I think what I say here is also supported by WP:UP#DELETE. Thanks. PS. While I'd would usually spend more time discussing this with the admin who deleted it, as I would like to review this soon, I don't want to chance that said admin could be inactive for few days or such; I need to look at this page ASAP (grades are due soon, you know...). PPS. For anyone wondering 'why do you let students write such crap', most of my students produce much better content, but there are always some who write the assignments two days before grading day, missing all the deadlines for draft submissions, early reviews and feedback, etc. and send me an email 'my work was deleted' a day before (essentially the case here). Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be undeleted long enough to grade it, but I don't promise it'll be around any longer than that... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about G11 (we've got a lot of fancrufty stuff like this), but some of it does appear to be sourced from elsewhere (the intro is from here for example...) Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is bad, but I really don't see how it could fall under G11, particularly while still in development in the sandbox. (The topic, btw, is notable, sample good source), and worst case, this can be gutted into a stub. I don't what's overly promotional about the history section (of course, it is mostly unreferenced, through the last paragraph is correctly soruced to [151]), and lists of characters are dime a dozen around here. Seriously, the only red flag I see there, spam-wise, is the list of stores with all those external links, which of course needs to go. This shouldn't have been G11'ed even if it was in mainspace (through of course in the current sad state it would need {{tone}}, {{refimprove}}, {{grammar}}, etc. But it is good to remember that WP:TNT-like solution should not be applied too easily. As I said earlier, this is hardly a good student example of quality student work, but I don't see what made it a valid G11 target (particularly when a simpler solution would've been to delete the problematic store list from the article, and leave a note on the creator's talk page - which sadly, the speeding admin never bothered to do, effectively biting the newbies - the student had to alert me of the problem through email, saying they don't know why their article was deleted, and I couldn't tell them 'read the message at your talk' because they've never gotten one, sigh...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Piotrus this entire thread was a complete waste of time. If people do not care about your class they will not care about WP. The speedy delete was about the right amount of time to spend on that garbage. We are not your servants or TAs. If the content were something remotely meaningful that could help provide knowledge to the world i would have been sympathetic but tossed off, COPYVIO fancruft about internet ephemera dumped into WP to meet an assignment is a CWOT for the editing community. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Take a cup of tea, stop biting other editors, new or old. Speedy should not be abused because some admins are tired and want to skim the rules to do less work. It was improperly used on a sandbox, the sandbox has been restored, problematic content has been removed, if anyone wants to delete the sandbox, WP:MFD is the right place for it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Btw see Draft:Line Friends which was never deleted. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I read that. I now know less than I did when I started. What the actual fuck? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a little relevant info at Line (software)#Features, last two sections. The most that should be done here IMO is moving any applicable sources over (since the actual article is light on sourcing), what we already have content-wise is pretty sufficient. I don't think G11 is really met here, but then again I tend to be a lot more lenient than most on promotional stuff. ansh666 23:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed the section called "Line Friends" from both the draft and the sandbox, as it was copypasted word for word from https://linefriends.com/. My feeling is that that's likely the case with the rest of the text too, though the footnotes for those refer to Korean pages of the linefriends website — pages which do not have an English version. I can't read Korean. But both the draft and the sandbox should be deleted ASAP, please. Piotrus, have you copied them for your own use now? Bishonen | talk 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC).

• Go ahead and delete the draft. But if anyone wants to delete the sandbox, take it to WP:MFD. I don't see now it falls under anything speedy, given that the spam and copyvio content (all two sentences of it) have been removed. As I said above, the topic is likely notable, and while the article is pretty low quality it at least deserves a proper deletion discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:DIVA in Environmental racism in Europe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some time ago, I came across the article Environmental racism in Europe because somebody added a link to Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll, which a) does not involve Europe and b) does not allege environmental racism. Reading throught the article, I found a huge WP:COATRACK of poorly sourced claims, announced a clean-up action and proceeded to do just that, checking claims made in the article and finding more sources. The reaction I got was a disruptive editing template on my user page. I responded, inviting Sturgeontransformer (talk · contribs) to discuss things on the appropriate talk page. Sturgeontransformer then solicited a third opinion, which is fine. The third opinion came in the form of François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (FR). I responded detailing the problems I have with the article and in what ways I think policies were violated. The third opinion then proceeded thusly:

• cute remarks about coatracks
• linking cat videos
• acussations of being bellicose, calls to be patient and urging me to assume good faith
• Objecting to any and all changed I made, w/o specifying any reasons
• Filing an ANI-report which was summarily dismissed
• calling me "old chap"
• reinstating that content on my talk-page after being told to bugger off in no uncertain terms
• refusing to discuss anything before deleted content wasn't restored
• calling me "darling" and "dear" To be clear, this is not about gender, it's the uncalled for and belittling familiar tone that bothers me.

All this is enough to get on my nerves, but it's just the introduction. Now the meat and bones:

• FR reinstated a contested section
• and again

I started a discussion on the talk page (as I did with all other changes I made to the article) spelling out my objection (not WP:RS by a mile)

• FR flat out refused to discuss anything unless the content was restored, inquiring if I "can contain [my]self from spontaneously bursting into flames again"
• A question by an uninvolved third party (User:GB fan) about why FR found himself unable to discuss things were dismissed with a "Riddle me this" and an accusation of me "trying to force [...] a new status quo"
• FR then pinged a number of other editors, accusing me of not even understanding what civil discussion is.
• Robert McClenon (pinged) roundly rejects FR's claims after which FR flies off the handle accusing me of (or at least implying such) edit-warring and driving Sturgeontransformer off Wikipedia. Also I am accused of "encroaching" upon WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONS, WP:NPA. No diffs are provided to support any of this.
• FR claims the problem is "quite clear" and that I went "Ha Ha Ha! You got nothin' on me!" in a rather lopsided representation of the goings on.
• A good summary is provided by Robert McClenon and I put FR on notice
• Another diatribe follows, this time accusing me of "destroying the article".
• And another list of unsubstatiated accusations, which caused me to file this. "And this, my dear presumptuous admin (or whatever you are on Wikipedia), is the stupid, short, easy-to-find log that began all of this, that seems to be completely hidden from admins. If Voldemort had any sense in him (!) he would've hidden one of his soul shards here, living happily ever after and ruling over us all."

In the article I have been careful to start discussions on any and all changes I made. FR has not responded to any of them, but instead wasted time and effort (of several editors) and has repeatedly accused me of various forms of misbehavior. The most egregious example can be found under the "contested section" header on the talk-page. I contend FR's behavior in this discussion has transgressed the boundaries of WP:AGF and can only be qualified as disruptive editing because he's massively wasting time and has yet to make a single useful contribution towards improving the actual article. Instead casting casting aspersions and, since he's exclusively targeting me without ever providing evidence of any actionable behavior, harassing me. Since anything I do or say on that TP will only make things worse, I'm asking for appropriate measures by the admins to curtail this kind of behavior in future. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kleuske, none of your diff links lead to the diffs you want. I suspect they are all off by one diff. When using the diff codes you can't use oldid as that links to the previous diff and not the one you are on. You have to get the next&oldid diff number. For example, you are using diff 816626232 to link to Robert Mclenon's summary whereas as it leads to FR adding in a reflist. Robert Mclenon's summary is located on diff 816631936; here. When using oldid, you have to move to the edit after the one you want. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Merd'allors... Thanks for pointing that out. Please bear with me, untill I correct all the diffs. Sorry 'bout that. Kleuske (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok. It should be alright, now... Kleuske (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment by François Robere

The entire history of this thing is in the logs and talk pages, and I see no reason to elaborate too much. A very clear summary of how this thing started is provided at the bottom of this page. Mind this is a week into the affair and by now I've become pretty irate, but I believe I was kind enough at the onset.

The bottom line is this: Both Sturgeontransformer and myself became convinced after that first correspondence that the other side is not interested in constructive discussion (I'll quote Sturgeontransformer's exact words later if he gives his consent), and that both their and my efforts will be wasted if we continued to engage; hence the ANI request and everything else that followed.

Unfortunately, the admins in their infinite wisdom found no reason to intercede, and in my next to last message (same link, some text in bold) I withdrew completely from the article, as has its original author, who is now off to write a PhD thesis on the subject which I'm sure will encounter much less resistance.

Cheers. François Robere (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comments - I concur with User:Kleuske's analysis in general and her characterization that User:François Robere is being a WP:DIVA. This was originally a content dispute, the result of bold edits by Kleuske with which FR disagreed. I became involved when FR filed a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which however was stated as a complaint about a user, which isn't what DRN is for, and wanted "the admins" (a repeated FR phrase) to do something about a user, namely, roll back the edits. I also see claims by FR that Kleuske is having problems with her temper, although I also see what appears to me to be temper by FR, and I see FR alleging uncivil behavior, while being rude and disparaging. Unfortunately, I think that either a Topic-Ban from the areas of environmental damage and of racism, broadly defined, or a one-week Block, are now necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That would've been a dandy proposition if neither ST or myself hadn't agreed to some of Kleuske's changes, but we did. What we disagreed with was the way they've done them. I don't know why you keep mischaracterizing the whole thing despite my recurring explanations, to the point of flinging a particularly nasty accusation against me (again in the link above) that's as baseless as they come. François Robere (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• One More Comment - I will repeat my previous suggestion that if both parties actually want to address content (although it appears that FR only wants to rant), a Request for Mediation with an expert volunteer mediator is the way to go. However, FR will first have to dismount from his high horse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Having waded through the acres of related text, I concur wholeheartedly with User:Kleuske's and Robert McClenon's analysis. FR would do well to read Law of holes. Buried somewhere in all this is a content dispute which I was no closer to really understanding, despite the acres of Diva-ish text from FR, but it was difficult to escape the conviction that whilst Kleuske was properly focusing on policy, FR was simply 'kicking up dust' because they understood that they had no policy based argument to defend their standpoints. If mediation is rejected, I would support a topic ban for FR, enough time and editor goodwill has been wasted already by Kleuske, Robert McClenon and others. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Can you, just for the sake of argument, summarise my standpoint as you understand it? Because, you know, the fact you still state it's about content despite my multiple statements to the contrary is... I don't get it, honestly. You can only state so many times that the skies are blue before becoming irate with others arguing that the clouds are actually pink. François Robere (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

PS @Pincrete, @Robert McClenon: I'm somewhat dumbfounded by both your suggestions. As it stands I last edited that article four days ago, and has since announced I'm withdrawing from it on several occasions, including - what, today? on this very page? It's up there, look. Add to that the fact I've never touched this topic before on Wiki, as least as AFAICR, and we end up... where, exactly? François Robere (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification - I should have said that I was proposing a Topic-Ban from article pages and talk pages on the topics of environmental damage and racism, broadly construed, and I am proposing that now. The fact that FR hasn't edited the article in four days doesn't change the fact that they continue to be disruptive by their hostile rhetoric. Loud statements that one is withdrawing from editing an article are not helpful. They are a form of diva flounce. Anyway, sometimes the clouds are pink even when the sky is otherwise blue, but we aren't here to discuss metaphysics. There seems to be a content dispute. There definitely is a conduct dispute on the part of FR. I still see no case that there has been a conduct issue about Kleuske. FR should either ask if Kleuske is willing to engage in formal mediation, which is voluntary and in which the mediator has complete control, or FR can be blocked or topic-banned. They aren't editing the article, but they are wasting pixels. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear, you already said that much in your previous message, in just about the same wording, and I've already replied in mine (speaking of "wasting pixels"!).

I don't know whether it is deliberately offensive or stupidly offensive that you have called two editors "dear" while disparaging them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It's neither, but as you obviously read nothing that I write you shouldn't really care. François Robere (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

But do explain this: On the one hand you want a ban, on the other hand you're not happy that I withdrew on my own volition. Do you want me to stay, is this it? Because there are much nicer ways to ask.

You haven't withdrawn. You aren't editing the article, but you are still being hostile and disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Who? Where? You? Here? What does that have to do with that article? François Robere (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

One last thing: Four days ago you said it's a "content dispute". Four days ago I replied. Four days later, you're still saying it's a content dispute. Either you haven't read, or don't care, or have your own axe to grind; however you turn it your objectivity is in doubt. François Robere (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This started with a content dispute, and the past doesn't change. There is also a conduct dispute, and this is here, at ANI, as a conduct dispute.

According to whom? You make no effort whatsoever to counter anything I say, you just repeat the same claim over and over. François Robere (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this on one article or multiple articles? I don't think topic bans are the usual course for issues that are effecting only one article, but an article ban could be. The presentation of the complaint is not very clear. WP:DIVA is not a policy - is this a WP:NOTHERE issue or something else? I think a few clear diffs would help more for those trying to sort this out. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

From my view, what is problematic is that FR is offering a third opinion. I think the obnoxious tone is not unusual for content disputes. The problem for me is that this is in the context of mediation/dispute resolution, where an editor assumes additional responsibility to remain uninvolved. Is it possible to topic ban an editor from doing this type of mediation work? Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Sorry I haven't been quite clear. What I'm alleging is WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, since he flatly refuses to discuss the subject matter and is massively wasting time, and harrassment, since FR has been very busy alleging all kinds of bad behavior on my part, on ANI, DRN and the article talk-page. In his latest post on the TP (see last link above), FR extends this behavior to other editors, too, which makes me think this behavior is structural rather than incidental. I do agree that a topic-ban would solve nothing, unless it's a ban on delivering third opinions. Personally I would think a one-way IBAN may be appropriate. WP:AGF stops me claiming WP:NOTHERE, but I think it might be applicable.

I do value Robert McClenon's offer for mediation, but I would require some pretty solid reassurances FR does not continue this behavior. I would also be happy if FR stopped discussing my perceived wrongdoings and focused on the topic instead. I have given him ample opportunity to do so, but FR does not seem interested. Hence the ANI-report. Kleuske (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification - I am not a mediator at Requests for Mediation and was not offering to act as the mediator. I am only a mediator at DRN. I am also not an admin, although FR refers to me as one of "the admins", a sort of collective entity. At this point, I think that mediation is not likely to work, and am recommending a Block instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I'd rather if you looked at other articles I've offered 3O on, or just other articles altogether, before suggesting something that wide-ranging. If I were in your position I'd be looking for evidence the editor in question is showing persistent bias any related article; being in my position I know you won't find any.

@Kleuske: You've accused User:Sturgeontransformer of violating at least 8 separate Wiki policies/guidelines before I even arrived at the article. How can you claim "disruption"? As for your comment on "other editors" - do explain. François Robere (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Here are some summaries I've already supplied in other places:

1. The discussion before I went to ANI. Note two things:

First, the elaboration in the "sources" and "countries" sections was due to Kleuske agreeing with me that they had to explain their changes; up to this point none of them were thoroughly explained in talk, despite the other editor's requests.

Second, I was very, very patient with them, and they were very, very inattentive to anyone else.

1. My ANI request. Again extremely civil - too civil - and with an explicit request not to enforce personal sanctions against the other editor.
2. The subsequent DNR. At the bottom there's a very clear explanation to one of the admins about the nature of this dispute; he seemed to disregard this explanation entirely up to, and including this discussion (you can see above).
3. User:GB fan asks some questions about my reservations from further editing the article, and I explain. By this point it's been five days, two boards and perhaps two more talk pages since the affair started, and no one seems to be able to say as much as "let's try and be civil", only WP:Policy babble.
4. User:Kleuske literally says "put up or shut up", and I call the other admins involved just to show them an example of how this thing's been conducted, and why I filed an ANI. The only one who replies is User:Robert McClenon, who is clearly hostile (I assume admins are supposed to be objective) - they have no problem with Kleuske's lack of civility, and seem to admonish me for asking for civility; they suggest a certain kind of bias against Kleuske, but when disproven do not apologize; and they repeat some claims about the discussion despite me refuting them again and again. Here's my reply.

And that's both the chronology and the core of the problem, as I see it: Not a single admin would utter the phrase "let's keep it civil". Not one. Only one admin (User:GB fan) expressed any interest in the case, and only one admin (User:Nihlus) showed any "outside the box" thinking. Everyone else seem to treat it like some kind of a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces are WP:Policies, and they have to fit to the letter, lest we throw a case out. That's the core of the problem, and that how my very simple request - let me revert the article to its last "stable" version, and ask the other side for some patience and civility - rolled into a week and a half of useless discussions. François Robere (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification - FR likes to refer to "the admins" as some sort of collective superhuman force. I am not an admin. User:Nihlus is not an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Kleuske (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: Apropos You've accused User:Sturgeontransformer of violating at least 8 separate Wiki policies/guidelines That's simply not true. I have pointed out the article violated various policies and guidelines and expressed my concerns. That was not what Sturgeontransformer wanted to hear, but that's nowhere near an "accusation". Please back that up with the appropriate diff, or to put it in the appropriate idiom, "put up or shut up". Kleuske (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you meant, your aggression left in both of us the impression of a very personal matter.

Actually Sturgeon had no problem with your reservations or suggestions, and neither did I, but we both took issue with the way you tried to force them. And I've said as much many times through this whole thing. François Robere (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You prove my point! Do you have the authority to close issues? You do. Do you have the authority to vote on them? You have. Whatever your exact title is doesn't matter in the slightest, does it? But you find it significant, because bureaucracy. And I already told you what I think about that. I've managed to go through over 3500 edits on Wikipedia without caring about that, and (as it's not content-related) there's really no reason to start now. François Robere (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment I think a lot of this could have been avoided if Kleuske had just posted a move proposal, instead of declaring I intend to go over this article with a fine toothed comb and weed out the idiotic assumptions, overused sources and, frankly ludicrous claims. - there may be some problems with the page, but implying that the editors who worked on it are "idiotic" is not likely to resolve them. I agree that going over the sources particular to Europe is a good idea. For example, the term environmental racism (which is being challenged by Kleuske as WP:OR) seems to be used in the Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities - I don't think FR's comments were helpful or grounded in policy - this is primarily a WP:CIR issue[152] [153] - FR should perhaps be restricted from offering 3O's for a time, and should voluntarily take some time off from this article, but I think the 1 week block proposed is both heavy handed and not preventative. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: So this is another example of how other editors' conduct can drive a person mad: I've already left that article. I've said so four times, three of which on this very page, but no one seems to notice. Even stranger, those who do seem to notice (specifically Robert McClenon, whom I pushed on the subject), seem to want me [active] on that page just so they can vote me out (oddly enough, said user changed his mind from "ban" to "block" once he realized that's not going to happen,). And the same thing happened with several other issues that relate to this dispute, to the point where I had to repeat the fact that I was repeating myself, and still no one seemed to care. This raises not only the practical question of whether all of the voters below are objective (I've no doubt that most are), but - and perhaps more importantly - it really leaves one dumbfounded as to the value of discussing anything here. I mean - four times, and some people are still talking about mediation. I really don't get it. François Robere (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

PS I don't take offense at your raising that CIR claim, as completely ludicrous as it is, but you're more than welcome to elaborate here or on my talk page. To me those diffs are a good example of several aspects of how processes like this can be conducted, including establishing some basic assumptions, point-to-point replies, dissection of the issues, and an overall focus on content. François Robere (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "list type article" - the article has a lot of problems. I think editors on both sides have made some valid points, but the discussion has become too heated. I also think you became overly involved in the dispute and the tone of the comments was unnecessarily condescending - even though it is not formal mediation, mediators have to be even more professional - no editor is obligated to take your advice, and you don't have any special authority responding to requests for a third opinion. I know Robert McClenon does a lot of good work at DR/n and understands how difficult it is to guide parties towards a consensus - However, if you are no longer working on the article, and their are no complaints about conduct issues on other articles, I don't think there is anything sanctionable here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It may not be the best term (I believe I used "overview" somewhere else), but it's definitely not the only article of its kind (eg. LGBT rights by country or territory, Renewable energy in the European Union, List of national legal systems).

I definitely became too involved, but my regret isn't about the WP:3O process itself (although the discussion was way too complicated for just a 3O to begin with); rather, it's about involving the admins. Mind - I kept it completely civil up to that point, including in my replies to the other editor's condescending comments (attaching a diagram of Graham's Hierarchy? Really?), but getting directed twice to other boards before having my complaint dismissed on grounds of "framing" was less than satisfying. In a way, this conflict has more to do with the Wikipedia bureaucracy than with the other editor; for whatever structural reasons, Wikipedia has trouble dealing with a whole class of behavioral problems that aren't clearly defined in its policies; one editor even told me to reframe the issues in policy terms, because "there isn’t a conduct issue that I can parse in standard written English". If the English Wikipedia can't conduct itself in "standard written English", then it's a major failure. François Robere (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I may have been too subtle. My point was precisely that complaints should be intelligible in standard written English. The problem seems to be that the complaint by User:François Robere was in syntactically valid standard written English, but the semantic content did not identify any conduct issue. FR did identify a content issue, but FR kept insisting that he wanted "the admins" (that vague collective entity) to do something about a user without stating a reason in terms of policies why there was a conduct issue. FR complains about how restrictive Wikipedia's "bureaucracy" is, but the basic situation is that there is no reason to do something about a user unless the user has done something wrong. Maybe FR thinks that this noticeboard should consist largely of statements of the form "I don't like her" and "I don't like him" and "I don't like them" and "I don't like it" (that bot, or that collective entity). However, the semantic content, in standard written English, didn't identify a conduct issue. If FR can't state a conduct issue in standard written English, maybe there isn't one.

Clarification needed on WP:POLICY

@Robert McClenon: How is your suggestion for a block not contrary to WP:NOPUNISH? As you well know, I've already left the article in question well before this thread was opened (or at least you should know, as I told you four times). Considering my only interaction with any of you has been around that subject, and you've shown no evidence whatsoever that I've done anything wrong in any other context (and frankly, not in this one either), how exactly is your suggestion WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE? Put differently, if "blocks should not be used... where there is no current conduct issue of concern", and you've demonstrated no such issue (only a supposed past issue), how is a block not contrary to WP:NOPUNISH and WP:PENAL? François Robere (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User:François Robere - It is true that you haven't edited the article in question for several days, but you are continuing to complain about it. Your complaining is tendentious. Also, many Wikipedians have too many memories of various disruptive editors who take a diva flounce off the stage, and other editors think that solves the problem, and then the diva comes back and resumes being disruptive and demanding with a nominally clean record. I thought that User:Kleuske was being harsh in saying "put up or shut up", but you have made the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Again the same question: Where am I arguing? Here? In a thread opened by a hostile editor on that subject? You can't open a thread like that and then gag one of the sides, let alone block them because they said something you didn't like. This has nothing to do with WP:TE.

As for your other claim: "many Wikipedians have too many memories of various disruptive editors" isn't WP:Policy. What you may or may not have memory of has nothing to do with this affair, or with this editor. Put differently: that isn't evidence, and by making your accusations based on nothing but that you're directly violating WP:PA: "What is considered to be a personal attack? ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." and WP:IUC: "[an example of] direct rudeness: ... ill-considered accusations of impropriety". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you pretty much "made the case" your suggestion should be dropped. François Robere (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Time to Do Something

• Just continuing to thrash is getting nowhere. It's obvious that User:François Robere isn't interested in editing an article except on their terms, and is being disruptive. Recommend a Block of one week. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Block and analysis given. Pincrete (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I see a content dispute that has maybe become a little personal between two editors, but there are problems with Kleuske's edits such as removing Ethnopolitics as "not WP:RS" [154] - it's a journal available through Taylor and Francis' database. I don't think ANI should take a side in the underlying content dispute. There is less than stellar behavior on both sides. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I rarely comment here (for the risk of being the pot calling the kettle black), but FR seems to have serious and persistent attitude problems, and could do with some time off. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is still a content dispute and both editors need to be open to discussing the article and work through mediation if they can't work it out themselves. There are some conduct issues but they don't rise to the level of needing action here. ~ GB fan 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  Comment: in my view, it's both a content dispute and a conduct dispute. The conduct part is being handled here. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  I agree and that is what I said above. I just went on to say that I do not feel the conduct rises to the level of needing any action here. ~ GB fan 22:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sorry, would use the IRC but it's being buggy for me. Here's the diff [155] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would an admin please semi-protect Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just reported Special:Contributions/Cowselba as a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MariaJaydHicky. The sock keeps reverting my report. Can someone please block the account so the investigation can move forward? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week, I hope SPI will be completed during this period.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:152.232.198.139 broke Three Revert Rule at Embraer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Embraer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=152.232.198.139

Please revert the modification of this User, and put ülease back the illustrated pictures, in which represents all models produced. Then if possible protectt the page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.86.106 (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You should report violations of the 3RR to WP:AN/EW along with diffs of the 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, but as far as I see the bright line was not broken here. I'm only counting at most 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Please remember that consecutive edits by the same editor count as one edit since the edit could just as easily have performed those edits in 1 edit. Also do remember 3 reverts isn't a right, so you may find both parties are sanctioned for edit warring, particularly if it's only 2 of you at it, or the page is simply protected. It may not help if the article talk page is devoid of any discussion over the content of the edit war. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oscar's Oasis racing to extended autoconfirmed status

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Oscar's Oasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oscar's Oasis, who registered at 09:14 December 24, has made many rapid fire edits over the last day of being here. He has a stated intention of reaching extended autoconfirmed status by April and tells us to not ask him why. That seems like an odd proclamation for someone to state within their first 5 hours of being a Wikipedia user.

Among the 326 edits the user has made is the 31 hours of its account existence are 81 welcoming of new users and 106 reverts of edits by User:5.43.185.132.

This is concerning behavior from a new user for sure. There seems to be a connection to User:7AU1606 who I see was blocked by User:Bbb23 previously per a checkuser block and User:RickinBaltimore for vandalism. The account is not currently blocked, though.

What are the thoughts on this account? only (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Only: I was looking into this when you pinged me. Haven't finished yet. Thanks for the reminder about 7AU1606.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea who those 2 people are. Either way, I'm not associated with them in any way. Oscar's Oasis (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No connection? Because the YouTube account you posted from used to be an account here before it was renamed 7AU1606. And your YouTube name isn’t exactly a “generic, anyone might use that kind of name” account. only (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oscar's Oasis. There are at least three socks (now blocked). Could you or someone else look at Special:Contributions/5.43.185.132? Are the rapid category changes generally constructive? I hate looking at category issues. The category changes go well beyond this one particular IP. Indeed, it extends to many other IPs and well over 1,000 edits of the same type. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at some random ones, they are mainly removing Category:South Korean male actors from articles which also have Category:South Korean male television actors, or in some cases changing the category into a more specific one. Note that User talk:5.43.185.132 was tagged as a possible sock puppet, which I'm thinking isn't actually the case. Κσυπ Cyp   16:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the sock puppet template from the IP's talk page. It seems that User:Upsidedown Keyboard's theory was that the IP was making the edits, and then Oscar's Oasis was making the reverts to boost his edit count. Based on Bbb23's conclusion on the case, I'm assuming that's not the case. only (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well, at least my investigation wans't entirely wrong. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: thanks for checking on it and taking action. As for the IP category edits... the edits seem to be valid from a random seleciton of them. They appear to be taking people from the generic "actors" category when they're already placed in "television actors" or "movie actors" categories. So the edits look good... it's the lack of edit summaries and the rapid-fire aspect of their work that isn't as desirable. only (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, the SPI seems to have been moved to the archive page before being marked as closed, with a still-active "attention needed" tag? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The SPI hasn't been archived yet, but it has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/7AU1606, since 7AU1606 is the oldest account of the group. When it is archived, it will be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/7AU1606/Archive. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Now has been archived, this ANI case properly can be closed. SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Ulysses Faye Ohkiph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in a slow edit war over national anthems in Asia. The particular problem is Template:National anthems of Asia. After being unable to resolve it with them I sought a third opinion – see Template talk:National anthems of Asia#China & Taiwan – which seemed to resolve things for a while. But Ulysses Faye Ohkiph continues to assert their idiosyncratic views, with a further comment on the talk page and now again restoring their rejected changes to the template, as well as making other pointless changes, accompanied with ever more offensive and abusive comments on the talk page and in edit summaries.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The initial version is accomplished by me and stay as that condition for more than 1 year. A racist like JohnBlackburne suddenly broke out and accuse me for edit war?! RIDICULOUS! I watched this template for years! Is Republic of China historically equals to Taiwan? Is he Chinese? Does he understand? THE VILLAIN BROUGHT SUIT ASGAINST HIS VICTIMS, lol.Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for both the linked edits above and the little tirade here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい 18:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

National Folklore theft at a page named Arab Dance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Arab dance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1-The page is stealing every single Egyptian Folklore heritage and claiming it to 22 countries. Clear appropriation.

2- North Africans (Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians...) are not ethnically Arabs/Bedouins so calling their Folk dances by Arab dance is clear culture appropriation and exclusion to Copts, Berbers and North African countries cultural right to have their National Folk dances named after their people and home.

What's the validity of creating pages on Wikipedia that erase the identity of several nations and also steal their Traditional Heritage. The article replaced every single Egyptian Folklore and every single Egyptian Traditional Dancer by the word Arab, in an attempt to erase other countries National Traditions.

3- A National Folklore Dance should have its country name mentioned, the owner aim is to steal certain countries' traditional folklore heritage and generalize it as if it is practiced by 400+ Million Arabic speaking person which is totally untrue.

4- The word Arab is not used by millions of North Africans as we are ethnically not Arabs so our Traditional Folklore should be named after our people/country and not other 20+ countries. Marina Towadros (talk)

AN/I is not a place to resolve content disputes. I see you're already discussing this at the article talk page, which is the correct venue, so I am closing this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The editor Binksternet is engaged in an edit war with several editors and is continually undoing sourced and referenced edits and posting threats on talk pages. The edits made to the articles 'Shirley Bassey' and 'Rock Profile' are sourced and verified. Indeed, the edit made to the Rock Profile page is the ONLY one that is sourced and verified. None of the other claims on the page have any sources at all. Oddly, Binksternet ignores this, which demonstrates they are simply wishing to war with particular editors. Currently, Binksternet is in violation of wikipedia's 3R rule and yet is avoided censure or even comment, whereas they continue to post threats to editors who are not in any violation at all. It is time Binksternet was blocked from editing for starting an edit war and violating the 3R rule.62.253.196.108 (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Taking a brief look at the edit history of Shirley Bassey, I see content being added by IP editors being removed not just by Binksternet, but also FlightTime: [156]. I also see that Binksternet has initiated discussions on the talk page: [157], which the IP editors have not responded to. Let's not waste any more time here. Requesting close without action. Cjhard (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You will need links to editing concerns - also the 3rr notiticbord is the place to report edit warring - quick look at user Binksternet editing history failed to see any concern. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Another editor has now joined in and is posting abusive talk page comments. Binksternet is in violation of the 3R rule clearly laid down by wikipedia and comments have been posted on their talk page, which they have deleted and removed. The 3R rule has been violated. That's a fact whether you close a dispute or not. 62.253.196.108 (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's also a fact that you called Bink a "psychopath".[158] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And it appears that the complainant here is also the editor 5.148.42.186 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably, but the former is a consumer ISP (i.e. home) and the latter tracks to a commercial organization (i.e. most likely where he works). 86.149.136.124 (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a consumer ISP but it's a hotel according to the WHOIS link - could be public wi-fi in different locations. Peter James (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how much use this will be, but I've semi-protected both Shirley Bassey and Rock Profile for two days because of the BLP concerns and edit warring. ansh666 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:CSHN Murthy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I do not know some of their thing, but there is a serious thing on their talk page currently, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this user talk page needs pay admins attention. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Or arbitrators' attention.Winged Blades^Godric 13:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TPA needs revoking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

StudentsAssignments (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a promotional account, yet the promo continues on the user TP. Can a friendly neighbourhood admin please assist? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gross PA by harassing IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please, someone block this piece of filth. Cassianto^Talk 22:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanking you kindly. Cassianto^Talk 22:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shenanigans at AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I nominated Owen Shroyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. Shroyer is an Infowars "journalist". A number of suspicious Keep votes have been registered.

• Article was created by MattiasDhlb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has very few prior edits.
• 91.239.206.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is in Tblisi, Russia, ruse, fake news etc.
• 80.193.190.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has edits in common with MattiasDhlb and is very likely the same person.
• LaceyUF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has very few edits to Wikipedia and no obvious prior interest in this article or AfD.
• Jacquimunroe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited today for the first time in six and a half years.
• Oscar's Oasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just got banninated as a sock.

This smells of meatpuppetry to me. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, I'm not Matt, I'm also a girl! (this does seem like a girls vs boys issue doesn't it!) Got a new router as an early Xmas present probably why my new IP doesn't show many edits. Googled Shroyer Saw page in creation Tried to clean it up Had a look at the creator's other edits and cleaned those up I've never have a login here and have no intention to create one. Anonymity is important to me. Discount my vote if you like seems like plenty of genuine keep votes. 80.193.190.189 (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC) This IP, 80.193.190.189, has been CheckUser blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other 5 possible socks but I'm LaceyUF and I have dynamic IP address so it changes a lot, plus I edit from 2-3 different devices. I have been VERY active on wikipedia for nearly 10 years and have went to 2 wiki-meetups, and donated about $300 over the years. I know about AGF but allow me to clarify the only reason I signed into my account was because it's the only one I have tied to an email address. I change usernames often due to the amount of creepiness I get from being a woman in tech. 67.233.34.199 (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Also where can i find an archived version of the Owen Schroyer page? 67.233.34.199 (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

My bad, it's Shroyer, link corrected above. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What does the amount of money you've donated have to do with anything? And, technically, deliberately using IP addresses to edit when you have an account is a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry, since it avoids scrutiny of your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not banned or blocked, I'm free to do what I like. I suggest you read WP:AIR. I'm signing out of my account now so I don't get anymore alerts. Consider yourself blocked from communicating with me. To everyone else, keep up the good work and will somebody please find me that video where Jimbo Wales gives an inspirational speech about sharing human knowledge with the world? (it is a famous 10 second clip that has been used extensively in wikipedia promotional outreach materials) Thanks! LaceyUF (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@LaceyUF: I guess you might not read this, but you are not correct when you say "If I'm not banned or blocked, I'm free to do what I like." Deceptive use of multiple accounts and/or IP addresses (for example, to appear to be more than one person on one side of a dispute) is not allowed, regardless of bans or blocks. I'm not suggesting that you have done anything wrong, as I have not examined this issue at all, but I'm just correcting you on a point of policy as explained at WP:SOCK. (As an aside, WP:AIR is Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, so I presume you meant something else). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant wp:iar. LaceyUF (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

LaceyUF My sole comment on your Talk page is the mandatory notice alerting you to this discussion. I note that you have copied the article to your sandbox. You are curiously obsessed with this topic, given your tiny number of edits to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I edited the Otto Warmbier article as my last major contribution. You are wrong on my edit count unless you are a checkuser. Please stop talking to me. I have nothing more I wish to say to you. LaceyUF (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You see, it doesn't really work that way. If you're doing something which is a violation of policy, like sockpuppetry, for instance, then your "stop talking to me" is not going to be terribly effective, because editors are going to want to know about your violations, and more to the point, are going to want to see you sanctioned for those violations. So far, every unrecognized editor on the AfD in question has been revealed to be a sockpuppet, and that raises a reasonable probability that you, too, are a sockpuppet. You can provide some evidence to show that you're not a sockpuppet, or your can rant and rave, and leave the impression to reasonable editors that you are a sockpuppet, the choice is yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, you cannot ban another editor from communicating with you on Noticeboards and other public places on Wikipedia -- although you can ban one from your talk page, if that makes you happy -- and the community could sanction the other editor with a Interaction Ban (IBan), which would prevent them from communicating with you, but you'd have to present some cogent evidence that such a ban was warranted. before that would happen.
  To the actual point, it's not the case that you are "free to do whatever you want", as you will find out if you take the time to read WP:Sockpuppetry. We have policies, some of which restrict what you can do, and they must be followed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's interesting to note that the IP 67.233.34.199, who LaceyUF says is her's, posted the welcome message on Oscar's Oasis' talk page as the first edit there. [[159]] OO has, of course, been blocked as a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

(from memory) I saw his name at the AFD and changed the color of the word "talk" next to his username from red to blue for reasons I wrote on your userpage. LaceyUF (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Another blocked sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I literally only have Christmas break to myself with work and the family. I'd met up with old friends, which led me to look at some old edits. Went through the list of nominated articles and I knew of Owen (and a couple of other pages) so took a look at the article and found it to meet the guidelines. You can even look me up on Facebook I really am a real person! :) Sorry I don't contribute more but I only try to contribute to pages and people I know something about. Jacquimunroe (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC) PS I live in Bath now, and not Hull, if you want to look me up. Jacquimunroe (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC) This account, Jacquimunroe, has been CheckUser blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Intentionally editing logged-out when you have an account is not necessarily prohibited, any more than editing with multiple accounts is. It's only a problem when you violate the WP:SOCK provisions, one of which is doing it intentionally "to confuse or deceive editors" who need to be reviewing your contributions. Merely editing with an IP is not a problem at all. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If the intention is to avoid scrutiny -- which is what I specifically referred to -- then that is "problematic" editing while logged out, and is most definitely a violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In this case you've got one IP with a first edit on 14 December to the article in question, [160] and another with a first edit on 18 December whose fifth edit was to the AfD. [161] Given that, there's every reason in the world to suspect meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. Then you have LaceyUF, whose initial response to this on Guy's talk page was "please remove my name from that list of dogshit" [162]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Does somebody smell sock? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. My IP address is usually 62.25.109.195 if I forget to log in which I do a lot of the time. Regarding the Russian vote is it really fair to discount a vote just based on geography? Has this IP made other malicious edits? Obviously when I work on something I don't like to see it deleted so may be a bit biased but isn't assuming that "everything from Russia is bad" a bit racist? MattiasDhlb (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC) This account, MattiasDhib, has been CheckUser blocked as a sock of Jacquimunroe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC) No, it's not and nobody's assuming it's bad because it's from Russia - the other IP geolocates to the UK. The reason this is suspect is because a bunch of editors with limited contributions all jumping onto one specific AfD to !vote the same way is very unusual and often a case of either xpuppetry or canvassing. Also, Tbilisi is the capital of Georgia and is not in Russia. WHOIS seems to confirm this. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks for explaining Mr rnddude. I did ask one friend to check out the page - didn't explicitly canvas them to vote and wasn't even aware of the vote until after as I was offline that day, but I think I can identify their vote to Keep on the page. Which may be out of loyalty but I will stand by the fact I do believe it's a notable subject with enough coverage to justify an entry. There seems to be a strong interest in the page looking at analytics which may only be due to this discussion but I am standing right behind it for now. MattiasDhlb (talk) There have been edits at the AfD by an open proxy IP [163] Billhpike (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Probably someone trying to deliberately discredit the voting. At the end of the day all Shroyer has to do is mention on his show that Wikipedia want to delete his page, and there'll be hundreds of KEEP votes from people who don't even know what a Wiki is. Probably even conspiracy videos. Full disclosure I am a friend of Matt's in the real world who hasn't voted. I knew about this yesterday and avoided voting yesterday because it seemed biased but got still got sucked into an AfD sinkhole. If I do vote it will be to keep. I'm not voting this way because I am a friend of Matt's but because I honestly think it's a keeper. Shroyer's digging his own grave and let's watch him do it. Spikegray (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC) The above account,Spikegray, has been CheckUser blocked as a sock of Jacquimonroe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flamingoflorida COI and disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This editor is connected to the category:Recanati family and has been making disruptive edits to almost every article in the category and related articles, including wholesale blanking [[164] and unsubstantiated additions to personal details. The editor claims that the existing articles were inaccurate and therefore libelous. After multiple explanations of the policy against COI editing and a request to put requests on talk pages, the changes keep coming. No {CN} tags, no requests, just edits. I'm requesting a ban from editing anything in the category for a period deemed appropriate. Rhadow (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have stopped editing those articles since are last discussion and I have disclosed my coi to everyone multiple timesFlamingoflorida (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Flamingoflorida said at WP:COIN three days ago that they would "try" to stop editing affected articles directly and use the request edit template. Since then, they have made over 100 direct edits to those articles and as far as I can see, not used the request edit template once. Melcous (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• The editor has in the past self-identified as a member of the Recanati family. I opened a discussion at COI a few days ago [165], which was prematurely closed after the editor promised no further disruption. Contrary to the advice of multiple editors, involvement with family articles has only accelerated since then. There is also a trail of lengthy discussion at my talk page, as well as those of other editors and article talk pages, all in the rather futile attempt to stanch the flow, so to speak. The issues are most pronounced re: COI subjects, but there are overarching competency concerns re: sloppy editing and original research (see another waste of time here [166]). If several experienced editors are required to follow and clean up after an account, Houston, we have a problem. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The articles are now being reviewed and being made neutral for the first time i am not arguing with the sources I only want a fair and neutral point of view we art not public figures micheal Recanati is not even notable. Some of the sources whereny checked against the article I need help please help and think if those thing where written about your family you would want every word accurate and neutralFlamingoflorida (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that this began in June, when the editor was using an IP [167], at which time he was warned re: COI and blocked. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

As you are also using an ip what is the problem I had know idea about Wikipedia then I know very little now but I am learning I need help those articles where full of main or errors about living people Flamingoflorida (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A major example was the prison sentence of Raphael Recanati that said 8 years instead of 8 months no that section is accurate and neutral no one on the family would be affected negatively by it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• And they just keep coming. Here's one just a minute after acknowledgment of this ANI: [168]. Rhadow (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I put the 4 sons in birth using a source and verified the wife’s name with an other source and fixed several small grammar and redundant repeat words I care about the tiny details of my family they are important I have a couple and I don’t hide it I am fully open and I’m trying to source as much as possible I don’t claim ownership in any way of the page and when sourced info is added I don’t object the pages where created without the sources being double checked now I am polishing them Flamingoflorida (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Read my talk page at Hello for a laugh. What a family. Daddio gets nicked for a stock swindle. Never-do-well son gives $30 million to NYU, takes the credit in the WSJ, then reneges on the gift. Now the granddaughter (my guess) sits in Florida arguing. Sheesh. (Delete after reading). Rhadow (talk) 22:40, 23

Rhadow wrote this about my family that is biased and unprofessional I have a conflict of interest I have disclosed≈ it Flamingoflorida (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melcous#Kathryn_TappenFlamingoflorida (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think many of us are losing our patience. This editor (Flamingoflorida) has become a nightmare in an inordinately short space of time, and clearly doesn't know when to stop, even when they're asked to. There are serious competency issues here, on top of the obvious WP:COIs with the Recanati family, and related topics such as 1983 Israel bank stock crisis. I would like to see them topic banned from any article page related to Recanati, and to respect the wishes of editors who ask them to keep away from their talk pages. Flamingoflorida has become quite a drain on many editors' time. I think it might help if this editor were required to propose the wording of all future edits, along with a rationale, on the respective Talk pages of those articles, and be required to wait until an independant editor has the time to implement them. We should not be running around cleaning up their mess, nor jumping to do their bidding, either. (Thankfully their damaging edits to a suite of GLAM-related articles has also ceased and have been reverted, following the intervention of three editors.) Further infringements or failure to heed reasonable warnings should be met with a block on all editing rights for an appropriate period of time. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The pages are arrurate and concise now and when it involves family each word is important I want only a complete accuract neutral article I want help then and still want help now and after a personal attack against my family how can I trust editors to be fair can I have one editor to help me with these articles and not involve anybody else somebody who can help me learn about how Wikipedia works I have an art history background if you need any help with that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 23:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Your comments here are not helping your case. Wikipedia acts on a neutral point of view, but that is "what is entirely neutral", not "what somebody associated with the article subject considers neutral". The best way to allow yourself to be helped is to step back, stop editing the articles, and instead go to the article talk page, post a notice about your concerns with the article and how you believe they can best be addressed, and then allow other editors to assess which, and which parts, of your changes would in fact be improvements to the article in line with Wikipedia policies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I will agree to that but rhadow now also has a conflict of interest involving the pages I will use the talk pages Flamingoflorida (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not how COI works. You have a COI because you are associated with/a member of the group in question. Rhadow is not, and therefore does not (can not) have a conflict of interest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nick Moyes and The Bushranger, I think that anything less than what John from Idegon proposed [169] will be ineffective, and delays the inevitable. After messing with this for three or more days, I'm convinced that at this time the situation is irredeemable. The above comment re: Rhadow is proof of that--the editor can't help but sow contentiousness, and whatever knowledge they bring to certain subjects is more than offset by issues of competence. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Add this [170]. WP:NOTHERE. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Unfortunatly I agree we may have a WP:CIR issue here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have stop editing those articles check my logs I have agreed and I am a keep to themFlamingoflorida (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Flamingo, but I trust you as far as I can throw a piano. Whatever is decided here, I do wish you the best. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's now spilled over into my talk page, too. Despite wanting to be fair and reasonable to all editors, even I'm now irritated enough to sway towards Johns proposal to block and revert all of their edits entirely, and let non-involved editors update or correct these articles in the way we would with any other subject. But maybe with the benefit of a few extra links and sources that have since arisen. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You don’t need to trust me I don’t you you don’t know me I agreed and gave my word of honor I and will keep to it And for the record my family’s wealth has nothing to do with it the continued mentioning of it means you are all biaed against it ie nick moyes and rhadow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no bias against anyone here, except those whose actions, whether self-serving or otherwise, cause severe disruption and annoyance to everyone else.Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

After all this, and a notice from NeilN [171], the latest tack is to troll for proxies [172], [173]. Happy Christmas, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• And this request [174] Rhadow (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I suspected that was a copycat of my request here [175], but I have no idea what the purpose was, nor was a source offered for a possible copyright violation. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User has been indeff'd by Alex Shih. I'd just close this but Flamingoflorida is on his second absolutely clueless block appeal already and I'd like to suggest revocation of TPA and institution of WP:RBI regarding this user. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

5 hours after Alex Shih blocked the editor, a new account User:Artliker was created and is editing similar kinds of articles in a similarly tendentious way, including adding puffery requested by FF on the talk page of one of his family member's articles - [176].  Looks like a duck to me. Melcous (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC) (Note, Alex has quickly blocked the sock. Melcous (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of a request on the Talk page of Criticism of Windows 10

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This morning I edited the Talk page of Criticism of Windows 10 asking whether other people have experienced the problems I have, and whether someone has some references that we could use in order to put these concerns into the article. My edit was quickly removed by "Codename Lisa" who accuses me of using the Talk page as a forum and of disruptive editing when I put it back (see User_talk:Eric_Kvaalen). She even wrote "So, sue me, I dare you."

My entry on the Talk page is a good-faith question and request. According to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments she does not have the right to remove it.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Instead of addig your own original research, you should look for reliable sources for the problems you're having. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hello.

  In my first edit summary, I was careful to be not just thorough and polite, but also helpful. I wrote: "Wikipedia is not a forum or a Microsoft technical support partner. You are in the wrong place, buddy. Microsoft Answers, TechNet Forums, or Superuser.com are the appropriate venues." I complemented it with a user talk page message explaining the problem with what he did. But he knew all this before posting that article talk page message: Other editors have told him not to. Also, {{uw-chat1}} is too pampering or condescending, given his station; so, I used {{uw-chat2}} instead.

  What followed up was, at least in my opinion, a defiant reflexive revert, which Eric sought to justify after only the fact. On one hand, he invokes WP:TPO (which is just a guideline) in the face of the fact that WP:NOTFORUM is not only a policy, but one of the founding pillars of Wikipedia. On the other hand, he says something entirely different on his talk page: "It was for improving the article based on reliable sources!" It goes without saying that in the contents reverted, he had written quite the opposite: "I would like to know whether other people are having similar problems. I came to this Wikipedia article and I find nothing about these problems. Does someone know of references so we can add these concerns to the article?" So, yes, I did use a stronger tone.

  People like Eric Kvaalen are not unprecedented. We've had people who came here to complain about many grievances like Donald Trump, Net Neutrality, mass survillence revealed by Edward Snowden, etc. Wikipedia is the wrong place.

  Best regards,
  Codename Lisa (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: You think calling someone "buddy" is an example of being "polite"? Paul August ☎ 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to jump in on the minor etiquette point; to my mind, "buddy" as used here is not overly courteous, but neither is it impolite. Had that been a reply on the talk page rather than a removal edit summary, I would think it was 100% appropriate. Then again, that's just me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Restore (and warn) I am thoroughly tired of Lisa's POV (and the inevitable identical tag team behaviour from FleetCommand) being used to strong-arm just this sort of issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So you are arguing to restore a clear violation of WP:NOTFORUM because you don't like the editor who initially removed it? That makes no sense from an objective take, and looks only like you're trying to further a grudge against editors you don't like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely I already made that clear enough for you.

There is nothing in TPO that requires this content to be removed. Although "forum" is regrettable, this is a trivial instance of it and, of the two between forum and POV, I'll take a bit of forum every time. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine, aside from admitting your entire rationale is due to your dislike of the editor who removed it, you still advocated for restoring a policy vio based on that. (If you want to get all wikilawyerly about it, then sure; the policy does not require the removal of such posts, but restoring such a post would be a fresh breach of policy.) I generally ignore forum-y comments (or point out NOTFORUM to the editor) instead of removing them, but to sit here and advocate for the restoration of a removed one simply because you dislike the editor who removed it seriously borders on WP:DE.

I mean, there's no chance this edit is actually going to get restored with anything like agreement to keep it, and you have to know this already. So from where I'm sitting, all you've accomplished is undercutting your own position the next time you disagree with either of the two editors you mentioned. Everyone who's read this, and then reads your next disagreement will come into that discussion with the knowledge that you care less about the project than about sticking your thumb in the eye of those two. I know that the next time I see you disagreeing with them, I'm going to be starting with the assumption that you're wrong, due entirely to reading your comments here. That's not only basic human nature, it's actually quite a logical presumption, too.

I guess my point is; I would advise you to remove your comments (you can remove all of my replies, as well) from this section and take a bit of a breather. Not doing so only makes it more difficult for you the next time you conflict with those editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This is chat room stuff. There are many ways to start exploring new content. E.G. finding a first source to launch discussion. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So Andy Dingley, that doesn't explain the "warning" part. If it's OK either way, why the fuss at ANI? SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It might make more sense to bring this question (in a much abbreviated form) to the Computer Ref Desk, and see if anyone has experience finding sources on these kinds of issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Eric Kvallen's lengthy post ended with a clearly stated desire to improve the article if sources could be found. I consider that a mitigating factor about the NOTAFORUM concerns. Although calling him "buddy" may not have been an insult, I see it as brusque and dismissive in this context. There are only two Wikipedia editors I might call "buddy" because I have known them for years and have met them in real life off Wikipedia. Even worse was "So, sue me, I dare you." That is both terribly rude and seems to me to be an attempt to provoke Eric into violating our policy against legal threats, which would result in him being blocked. Codename Lisa, I advise you to dial down your confrontational tone. I endorse the suggestion by Baseball Bugs to ask for help finding sources at the appropriate Ref Desk. The optimal outcome would be less drama and more collaboration with the goal of improving this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block to combat block evasion by MariaJaydHicky

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since blocks from this user's SPI were handed down earlier today, this user has used at least the following four IPs to evade their block:

• 82.132.239.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.132.235.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.132.230.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.132.223.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.132.239.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Prior to the most recent SPI, the user used the following IPs in the past few days (probably a bunch of others as well):

• 82.132.223.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.132.229.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

As well as, apparently, Special:Contributions/LouiseRedknappfan.

Would it be feasible to apply some kind of short-term range block? Much thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Evasion continues, now at Special:Contributions/Grandenator. If a range block is inappropriate, can admin at least block these accounts and listed IPs? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Widr:, who blocked one of the IPs yesterday. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Widr, for taking care of this. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Prisonermonkeys actions

Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have requested a controversial (we already had a conversation with him and User:The359 about it) move of the Toyota GAZOO Racing WRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which ignores WP:MOSCAPS. Please undone the move. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We have not had a conversation about it. You came in, said what you expected of the article and then left. There was no "conversation" involved. You have not taken part in any recent discussions about the article move, cited any specific part of MOSCAPS that you claim applies, and nor have you addressed the issue of why you think the source provided in support of the article name is invalid despite satisfying both WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. You should also be perfectly aware that consensus can and does change over time. To run straight to ANI to try and force changes to an article like this is inappropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The article was originally "Toyota GAZOO Racing". As the article was changed back to its original capitalisation according to WP:BRD it should be discussed, but the first change of capitalisation ("GAZOO" to "Gazoo") looks uncontroversial and is supported by WP:MOSCAPS#Trademarks - it isn't used consistently on official websites[177][178] and "Gazoo" seems to be more commonly used in news coverage. Peter James (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's now at Toyota Gazoo Racing WRT. This discussion can be closed. Peter James (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We had not a conversation? Really?! You hadn't received a new consensus and ran straight to technical requests without any discussions. You never stop to surprise. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You have a history of making bad edits and responding poorly when your mistakes are pointed out to you. Given that you haven't edited the article in question or anything related to it in over a year and your habit of makimg declarations rather than engaging discussions, running to ANI over it is a rather dictatorial approach to take. Meanwhile, I'm trying to deal with someone who is violating WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:OR on the same issue (and is now violating WP:CRYSTAL), which you would know if you were actually paying attention to those pages rather than swooping in and making demands about an article because it satisfies your ego. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Your allegations to my address look like a confession of your own actions in Wikipedia. The facts are that you mislead the administrator and lied that you hadn't conversation about the page name and that you had achieved new consensus. Corvus tristis (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that in addition to not having any diffs supplied (by either side) with regard to the actual complaint, calling another editor a liar is a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"The facts are that you mislead the administrator and lied that you hadn't conversation about the page name and that you had achieved new consensus"

I said nothing of the sort. This is what I said at WP:RM:

"Requesting a move because a redirect already exists for the GAZOO article and the capitalised name most accurately reflects the team name, as per this source. "Toyota GAZOO Racing" is the name used by all works Toyota teams in all disciplines of motorsport."

So I did not lie to or mislead an administrator as you claim. Furthermore, why do you expect me to remember—much less honour—a one-sided "discussion" that you gave me every reason to forget about with your arrogant attitude? You came in, made a declaration and demanded it be observed, then refused to respond and left it for a year only to jump on any changes you didn't like within hours of them being made by taking it to ANI. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In your request you said nothing about an "one-sided discussion", and even if you have "forget" you should have placed your request here due to previous history of the page moves. You said that consensus was changed but you haven't any discussions to achieve it. Consensus was internal? Inside you? Did you have any questions to me in the discussion? In your last message in the discussion you had only two direct statements which didn't require my response. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"You said that consensus was changed"

No, I didn't. I said that "a consensus can change" where the indefinite article "a" is used to refer to any consensus. That's not the first time you have misrepresented what I have said. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that I have misrepresented your words about consensus. I'm apologize for this misrepresentation. But you haven't any consensus for the move. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I hardly think a user talk page is the most appropriate place to be establishing a consensus. Nor do I think that the discussion that takes place rates as a "discussion" given that it amounted to you coming in with a narrow definition of a Manual of Style guideline, no appreciation of the context of the discussion and refused to discuss the matter once you had made up your mind. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I received two threatening messages from User:Khirurg that made me uncomfortable- probably it is just threats of filing some kind of complaint at ANI, but the tone came across as unusually aggressive. There have been previous personal attacks, but the tone of these has me very anxious that he intends to escalate (possibly off-wiki, I may be over-reacting I sincerely feel uneasy after reading these) - Also, if something I have done is "stalking" then I would like to know what so this can be resolved:

• [179]
• [180]

Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--Don't cry wolf. You know very well that there is a considerable difference of editorial opinions between both of you and it has been continually reflected across multiple t/ps and other venues.Also, both of your behaviour (if any) needs to be evaluated.And finally, there's nothing off-wiki aspect to these--you ought to know better.Winged Blades^Godric 08:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I've received warnings before and even final warnings but not "you better do this" and "I won't warn you again" - these sounds like threats, like this person intends to do me some kind of harm if I don't do what he is demanding. I know better then to use this kind of language. I asked what he meant and he didn't explain. How do you know what he meant? I wouldn't post it here if it hasn't actually scared me. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

OFFS. EEng 09:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No, those are not off wiki threats. In context, the messages were "And you'd better stop stalking my edits while you're at it", and "Cut it out with the stalking, as you did at Anatolia. I won't warn you again." You seem to be selectively quoting to get this editor into trouble. Presumably something to do with this. Further frivolous reporting will be viewed dimly, I suspect. fish&karate 09:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, Seraphim System, please, do not file another report like this. This has been going on for a long time now and it's becoming disruptive. Alex Shih (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If you guys honestly think I am over-reacting to some kind of routine minor "I'll report you at ANI" mid content-dispute intimidation, then maybe I am reading too much into the "you'd better stop" remark. I wouldn't post anything that minor here, but it freaked me out. I'm not selectively quoting and I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble, I honestly just want this resolved so this hostile battleground bs stops. Alex Shih Before you close this, can you answer my initial question: Do I have any obligation to heed the warning he gave me? Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I appreciate the remarks may have freaked you out, but I think you're reading into the "you'd better stop" a little too much. I'll look into the background a little now, but personally I think taking a step back from Wikipedia and collecting yourself would help you -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• The editor interact tool: [181] indicates that it is plausible that Khirurg's accusation of stalking may be substantiated. Of course, without deeper investigation, there are more innocent explanations for the overlap. I'd be interested in seeing Khirurg's explanation, with diffs, of this accusation. If Khirurg can't do this, while the characterisation of "threatening" clearly carries no water, unsubstantiated accusations of stalking may be considered personal attacks, or at least very poor form. Cjhard (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• I'll say it again: Oh, for fuck sake. Is there no limit to the triviality of things reported here? This board is for actual problems, like actual threats. At the very least the OP should have had the sense to consult a friendly neighborhood admin on the admin's talk page. EEng 17:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

EEng, your tone is coming across as unusually aggressive and has me very anxious that you intend to escalate, possibly off-wiki. GMG^talk 17:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

GMG, your mention of off-wiki escalation has me worried about you going after someone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Listen, I've received warnings before and even final warnings but not "Oh, for fuck sake" and "Is there no limit to the triviality of things reported here" - these sounds like threats. GMG^talk 17:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What I'm seeing here is a user with a personal grudge. Sending Khirurg, a veteran user who has been part of the project for over a decade now, to ANI for the second time in a matter of days seems to be nothing more than a high maintenance gig. If there's anyone making threats, it is the OP who is now going around to the talk pages of several users involved in this now closed thread (GreenMeansGo and There'sNoTime) with a stark message for each and every one of them. ([182][183]). Looks like the pot is calling the kettle black. This is grounds for a boomerang at this point. Otherwise, we're never going to hear the end of it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not offended. If folks are frustrated I'd rather they vent it on me than vent it elsewhere. GMG^talk 19:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

how about hitting Etienne with his own boomerang for responding to closed ANI threads because of his own personal grudge? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple people have told you to let it go. Perhaps you should do that. --Tarage (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I say "you" I mean the royal you, as in all of you. Seriously. Stop. --Tarage (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mauro Malavasi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Mauro Malavasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't have much experience reporting copyright problems, but it appears the author of this article has pulled text verbatim from multiple sources, including [184] and [185] and possibly other pages elsewhere on the internet as yet undiscovered. I am mostly retired from editing on wikipedia and don't have time to donate to this issue at present.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Revolvy is a Wikipedia mirror, and the other page is dated 2009, at which point we already had the overlapping content for two years. So it looks like both of these websites copied from us rather than the other way around. The page looks okay to me from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't seem likely to me as they are selected copy pastes from the middle of differing texts that merge here in a new structure. Those pages aren't even solely about Mauro Malavasi, which makes the possibility of a mirror site very unlikely. That should raise some red flags. Much of the text was added by User:Soulfunk in 2007 who had created copyright problems at other articles around the same time. Together this makes me suspicious. 4meter4 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Note the first part there: Revolvy is explicitly a WP:MIRROR. It might not seem likely, but that's literally what it exists for. While I can't speak for the other, ANI is the wrong venue to discuss copyvio concerns: you want WP:CP, which is thataway→. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a mirror of a different wikipedia article on a different person related to Malavasi. I placed the tag for copyright on the page, but I have no idea if I set it up properly at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 December 27. Could someone familiar with that process double check please. Thanks. 4meter4 (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how a blog post dated October 2009 can be the source for a copyvio added in 2007. Regardless, I have tweeked the formatting of your post at WP:CP and another investigator can assess. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Musk fancruft

I ran into user:Daniel.Cardenas recently whose account is near-SPA for electric cars and Tesla products in particular. Makes fanboy edits and arguments.

Per his edit count he has been here since 2005 and has around 9000 edits.

To give you the flavor of his editing

• 333 Usage share of web browsers (contribs there, most recent Jan 2017
• 321 Electric car (contribs there, most recent Oct 2017
• 163 Toyota Prius (contribs there, most recent in 2011)
• 144 Electric motorcycles and scooters (contribs there most recent 2008)
• 118 Motor vehicle emissions (contribs there, most recent 2013

Most recently these edits. These edits have nothing to do with what we are up to here in Wikipedia, and everything to do with Daniel.Cardenas's fanhood/passion:

• !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Roadster (2020): *Keep Revolutionary product that puts gas cars to shame.
• at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Semi:
  • comment: LOL, this is not a short article. The implications of the announcement are huge. Thousands of people dying because of pollution, thousands dying because of drugged or drowsy semi drivers. The truck will revolutionize the industry. If you do a search on a given 24 hour period you will find thousands of hits on this topic.
  • !vote: Keep'. Very useful for research. 1500 views per day.
  • comment: The industry analysts have zero credibility. They have been predicting Tesla bankruptcy and other ills for years.
  • comment: Popularity of a topic doesn't mean it is encyclopedic, but it is a strong indication. WP:CRYSTAL product announcement is intended for the myriad of product announcements that happen readily, like a new version of car. Done with a press release and a couple of paragraphs of relevant info. In comparison there are working prototypes demonstrated to live audience, orders being taken, detailed specs released, including pricing. http://tesla.com/semi Product is being discussed widely from several perspectives and continues to be referenced widely in the media everyday. The article continues to be expanded everyday. And daily page views show the exceptional value of this page. (note the inclusion of spam link)
• diffs, string of blatantly POV diffs, removing exceptionally high quality refs like this Bloomberg analysis of the battery claims.

• here they remove the AfD template from the article, while the AfD is ongoing. reverted by bot.

On Talk pages:

• section abusing Talk page to chat about Exciting New Developments kicked off with a ref that the user himself says is not usable in WP.

• In the Tesla Semi article
  • first edit is adding spam link
  • next edit adds pure advertising copy + second bareURL spam link (among other stuff): Among Tesla's unique capabilities are 0-60 time of 5 seconds unloaded and 20 seconds with 80,000 lbs of load. Able to maintain a speed of 65 mph up a 5% grade with a full load. Estimated savings of $200,000 a year in fuel costs. Will come in two configurations of 300 and 500 mile range.
  • adds EL to video of Musk pitching the truck
  • adds content citing that same video with a bareURL. There are plenty of written sources already cited in the article with this info (we now have WP:CIR on top of PROMO/fancruft)
  • adds more content, also cited to the same video, with full bareURL spamlink again, adding purely speculative content using the same tense they would as if they were writing "the sun will come up tomorrow" Operating costs will beat that of a diesel truck from day one when considering all costs including insurance.
  • adds more hard-selling: Having autopilot standard helps with insurance costs. Tesla warranties the truck for a million miles which helps with lease costs. Low maintenance for EVs help with operating costs, like never having to replace the brakes due to regenerative braking. (note, they did also add here a bit of non-fanboy content claimed by Tesla but not independently verified. But in the fanboy content, they show that they actually think regenerative braking has something to do with regenerating the brakes. So this person is not only an incompetent editor adding fancruft to Wikipedia, they don't even understand the basics of the car stuff they are raving about.

In other articles

• diff in true advocate form, adding content about health sourced to very non-MEDRS refs.
• diff adds content not in the source provided to Keep Hope Alive.
• but then here regurgitates hyping press release + churnalism refs about it
• creates an article sourced almost entirely from bareURL SPS

Please see this discussion at their talk page, where they write things like Your blinded by your negatively. I've indicated on the talk page how edits are not hype. Read it (diff)

Anyway we resolved that issue and he stood down but and today he stormed back in and went back to the same behavior of trying to force in fancruft, after others had reached a consensus at talk (at Talk:Tesla_Semi#Orders) and in the article itself, to exclude detail about pre-orders of the Tesla Semi and just have high-level, encyclopedic content.

He first wrote at talk} Agree the list of orders is relevant and encyclopedic. It shows that the industry is backing this endeavour, adds notability to the article, and adds credibility to the manufacturer claims (note that none of that has to do with Wikipedia's mission) and then promptly re-expanded this stuff and have edit warred to restore it diff, diff, diff. He made a subsequent argument here: There is no question that the topic is very notable; we need content that shows notability (This is incoherent and in any case, we had an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Semi| AfD on this] and the close was "snowball keep").

This person is not here to build an encyclopedia but rather continually Assert the Importance and Inevitability of Our Technologically Driven Future with Musk as Our Great Hero as well as his own Superior Knowledge of It, although he apparently barely understands it. We all have work to do building WP.

Please at minimum topic ban him from all things Musk and please consider, from alternatively-fueled vehicles. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what is wrong with Jytdog's perspective but other editor agrees with me .

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla_Semi&curid=55822608&diff=816319615&oldid=816319002

Jytdog comes across to me as a bully, even though there are other editors who disagree with him [186][187]. It is either his way or the highway. In fact , everyone on the talk page now disagrees with him on this subject, but here he is bullying. Recommend temporarily banning jytdog , to give him time to reflect on his actions.

References

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Things getting worked out at the talk page is fine, and what should happen. This is not about the specific content. The aggressive edit warring to add advocacy content is not. And you have even here spammed WP yet further. As we had discussed at your talk page, your overall pattern of aggressive advocacy editing is not OK. I will not be responding to you further here. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC) (clarify Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC))

Your aggressive edit warring is not OK. And you have even here spammed WP yet further with your bullying. Yes, you need to take time off and reflect upon your edit warring with other wikipedia editors. As stated earlier, 3 other editors agree with me, and zero with you on the tesla semi talk page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It takes at least two to edit war. See also WP:NOTTHEM and WP:CRYBULLY. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. To summarize latest incident. DanielCar adds tesla semi orders content to page. Comment on talk page. jytog reverts 3 times. Three editors besides myself on talk page agree this is good content. Only jytog disagrees. Jytog comes here complaining about my reverting his reverts. Erroneously claims this is fanboy material, rather than important material that adds great value to the article. Then further claims this is not about the content. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Going once... EEng 03:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin heads-up on Julius Dawkins/User:Jremoval

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

A connected contributor (well, the article's subject) has created an account for the sole purpose of removing its content (links above in section header), and has, blanked it twice. I have advised him to contact OTRS, but not sure what admins can do here, other than give another explanation of the issue. This is a difficult situation, because he shouldn't be blanking it if this were not for the exceptional circumstances that he has provided us. !dave 22:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

They can semi-protect the article, which will prevent Jremoval from editing it. I'll request it at RFPP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, they could block Jremoval. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

In an edit summary, Jremoval claims that they are removing information for privacy reasons, but all of the information deleted is easily available at any number of websites, and none of it is, as far as I can tell, an invasion of privacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm all for protecting the subjects of BLP, but this is the most basic and non-private information. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article. We have no way of knowing whether this editor is who they say. I agree with Beyond My Ken that there is nothing controversial in that article, and nothing that would bring danger to his family. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, 2017121310010035 within OTRS is a continuation of this discussion. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 06:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--@Cullen328 and Drmies:--Is the subject very notable? If not, based on OTRS details, I'm inclined to launch an AFD with the clause:--Subject requests Deletion.(pending some inter-OTRS formalities).Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 13:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Winged Blades of Godric, I don't know about "very" but he seems to pass the notability guidelines for professional athletes easily. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Winged Blades of Godric, he is notable in my opinion. He played in the National Football League for two seasons, after an impressive college career. I did a basic Google search, and easily found significant coverage of him, published years later, that would make it easy to expand this article. I found nothing negative about him at all, except that his NFL career was brief. He later played arena football for a few years. I would oppose deleting the article based on nothing more than the subject's unreasonable fears. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually, I have near-nil idea about American Football.Since, you have both said that the subject is notable enough there's no future prospect of an AfD, at least from our side.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 16:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

68.234.65.184 introducing unsourced content and factual errors

• 68.234.65.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP editor has a long-standing pattern of replacing article content with unsourced/inaccurate content, particularly about the position of various football players. [188], [189], [190], [191],[192],[193],[194],[195],[196],[197], [198], [199]

Editor has quickly removed these comments from their Talk [200] which has been explained on their Talk may be taken as evidence of the having been read. [201]

Editor has explained recent blanking of content as "a mistake." [202]

This behavior has resumed after most recent Talk [203] as seen by changing the position of Minkah Fitzpatrick from "defensive back" to "safety." Note, the article text makes no such claim, while the original position of "defensive back" is supported by both the ESPN and Yahoo.com bio links within the Infobox and the article's categorization. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

More convincingly, the Crimson Tide website shows Fitzpatrick as a defensive back,[204] with indications that he plays safety sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:PreciesJJ continues to add unsourced info, no discussion

• PreciesJJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2019 PDC World Darts Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user continues to add unsourced and WP:CRYSTAL information to this former redirect and is bordering on a potential edit war. I know I'm also close to hitting 3 reverts myself, but it concerns me more that the information the user continues to add to this page is unsourced. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• The information added to the page is all provisional and based on the PDC order of merit. The up-to-date order of merit will be published at 3 january, the list I added is the updated one till 20 december. User:PreciesJJ (talk 19:12, 21 December 2017 (CET)

• @PreciesJJ: Given this, your edit looks like WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. You can add the list when you have a source that actually says these are the provisional competitors for 2019. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is now at WP:AN3 (six reverts) though I can't close it as I'm involved. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing be similar IP at Slipknot Discography

Repeated edits which are unsourced and messing with table formatting on Slipknot Discography by similar IP addresses;

• 179.52.226.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 148.103.146.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 179.52.226.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Can someone do a rollback to [205] and do something about the IP's as I have noticed they have been doing more unsourced and disruptive, albeit WP:GF edits, across other pages. MetalDylan (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Congressional staffers

There have been multiple incidents of disruptive editing by apparent Congressional staffers (their edits suggest there are multiple people doing this) that have been documented by the Twitter bot CongressEdits (and the internet at large — see [206]). Here, I'll try to list as many vandalizing IPs as I can find, since the edit about porgs on October 2017:

(I'm providing this as proof that vandalism by Congress is a recurring problem that is not confined to a single IP or even sockpuppet, not that these specific addresses, some of whom haven't edited in a while and some who only vandalized once, should be blocked.)

• 143.231.249.131 (Blocked twice)
  • Porgs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=805821891&oldid=805769382
  • Replying to BuzzFeed article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=805968359&oldid=805958090
  • Democratic socialists: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=805973219&oldid=805937679
  • Kylo Ren https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806073648&oldid=805331027
  • Keith Ellison https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806076444&oldid=805530710
  • Men's rights movement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806084577&oldid=802695153
  • Charlie Kirk https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806085597&oldid=804776494
  • MBMBaM https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806840528&oldid=806833192
  • Keebler https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808026901&oldid=804889022
  • Anti fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808029552&oldid=807319230
  • Supersoldier https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808029622&oldid=806796584
  • Hank Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808042881&oldid=807019813
  • Air Bud https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808088394&oldid=806906636
  • Invertebrate https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809055850&oldid=808008678
  • Russian https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809174733&oldid=801823127
  • Chuck E. Cheese's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815077425&oldid=813092844
  • Obi-Wan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815078735&oldid=815025352

• 143.231.249.136 (Warned)
  • Independent journal review: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=805977136&oldid=802994181
  • Ted, Cruz, is, the, Zodiac, killer https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065281&oldid=802825712 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065381&oldid=804823016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065409&oldid=805667614 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065446&oldid=802201429 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065475&oldid=805682302 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806065509&oldid=805267764

• 143.231.249.133 (Warned, edits from this address may have stopped)
  • Luke Skywalker https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806087233&oldid=803599547
  • Narcissism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806094200&oldid=805255391
  • Guillotine https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808039906&oldid=807910315
  • AEIOU https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809541856&oldid=797648019
  • farewell message https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=813848353&oldid=799065249

• 143.231.249.130 (Blocked 4 times, latest block expired today)
  • Our Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806088581&oldid=805874875
  • DSA https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806088945&oldid=805979616 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806089931&oldid=806089302
  • Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806847805&oldid=806495787
  • Vader https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806891548&oldid=806615440
  • Fantasy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=807192320&oldid=806425957
  • Hamilton musical https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=807195241&oldid=807097999
  • Mueller https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808031338&oldid=807980550
  • Papadopoulos https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808035864&oldid=808030824
  • George W Bush https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808042038&oldid=807843542
  • Tribble https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808044883&oldid=804699856
  • Daycare https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808054571&oldid=806996360
  • Turks https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808081334&oldid=808072535
  • Goddess(=Beyoncé) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809180266&oldid=804933959
  • Absolute Boy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809497438&oldid=802201218
  • Lee-Carter model https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809497633&oldid=776515827
  • Wrecked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809498096&oldid=805564347
  • False attribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809501087&oldid=799697346
  • Cop https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809504412&oldid=805647688, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809504497&oldid=809504418
  • Intern https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809505643&oldid=808957698
  • Painting https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=810313348&oldid=807508778
  • humor https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=810314481&oldid=810203570
  • dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811435979&oldid=811429351

• 143.231.70.15 (Warned)
  • Imposters https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806089348&oldid=805370926
  • Cats https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=806091640&oldid=805640286
  • Al Franken show https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=810663904&oldid=805982209
  • Cool S https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=814087908&oldid=813647304
  • Kylo Ren https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815219649&oldid=815145158, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815219732&oldid=815219716
  • Star Wars sequel trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815220216&oldid=815094614

• 143.231.249.141 (Warned)
  • Bail https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808028300&oldid=806424691
  • Intern https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816471350&oldid=816283137

• 156.33.252.38 (Warned)
  • Charlatan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=808257270&oldid=805118682

• 156.33.241.39 (Warned)
  • Fiscal conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=810538031&oldid=809319546

• 156.33.255.220 (Warned)
  • James Hickey https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=810702541&oldid=808623422
  • poop https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816174958&oldid=814043974
  • Hannity https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816182906&oldid=816131764, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816513512&oldid=816460298

• 143.231.70.14 (Warned)
  • Tom Nook https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811455184&oldid=801833775
  • Bears Ears https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=814037178&oldid=813998887
  • Knights Templar https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=814040592&oldid=813726714

• 156.33.241.41 (blocked twice, block expires tomorrow)
  • Mtn Dew https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815227758&oldid=815014619
  • District Taco https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815229237&oldid=814220842
  • Sweet Home Alabama (related to Doug Jones win?) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815229946&oldid=811595452
  • high school student govt https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815231005&oldid=814237990
  • Bandwidth throttling https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815548411&oldid=814112596
  • Deep state https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815554647&oldid=814393998
  • Idaho Falls https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816178487&oldid=816149471

• 143.228.129.2 (warned)
  • Snoke https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815408640&oldid=815366331
  • message posted on First Order https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815408833&oldid=813432713
  • Garbage is Ajit Pai https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815410876&oldid=815040052
  • Tucker Carlson https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=815561741&oldid=814724295

• 143.231.249.135 (warned)
  • Zelda https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816016700&oldid=814177574
  • a Katy Perry song https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816140219&oldid=815397428
  • Kylo Ren https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816142565&oldid=816019333
  • Star crossed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816147194&oldid=812850019
  • Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816163078&oldid=816127669
  • Stolen valor https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=816466532&oldid=729926072
  • This user has been edit warring on R2-D2 many times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/143.231.249.135

This user was actaully reverting vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=809259771&oldid=808012804

However, there have also been constructive edits by Congressional IPs recently. I believe Congress has been IP-banned before in the past. I'm not sure if that should happen again but it should be taken under consideration, considering this has gone on for 2+ months now (and I only included a portion of the edits above). Thanks, AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything there rising about the normal level of low-level vandalism we'd expect from any IP range; we wouldn't consider rangeblocking Comcast or British Telecom just because there happened to be some vandal edits coming from that range. A reminder to any admin who's tempted to act on this report that per the message no admin ever bothers reading because it's buried in the wall of text at the top of Special:BlockIP, any block of one or all of these IP addresses is automatically a WMF matter and you need immediately to notify ComCom of any action you take and to be prepared to be pestered by journalists, and en-wiki admins are forbidden by WMF diktat from enacting any form of long-term block on any of these addresses. ‑ Iridescent 17:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that those Comcast or BT edits don't get automatically forwarded to Twitter, which is almost certainly the entire reason behind these. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

One would expect Congressional staffers to have better things to do :/ GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay, remember "congressional staffers" is a broad group; as well as the politicians and advisors one thinks of when one sees the "congress" address, these IPs will also be being used by security guards, canteen staff, bored interns, maintenance, assorted clerks and envelope stuffers and so on. There are approximately 20,000 people working in Congress at any given time; when we see edits coming from a town, we don't automatically assume they're being made by the mayor. ‑ Iridescent 17:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That and there are certain mindsets these days that would consider at least some of these the single most important thing to do, and we'll just leave that at that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm not an American but I think it would be fun if [207] was written by a US Senator. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent, if press reports are to be believed, arrogant game playing interns are responsible, not career security guards or clerks or kitchen staff. These career people want to keep their good jobs, while the nihilist interns openly brag online about the fun they are having vandalizing Wikipedia, and will go back to their University "studies" after their jolly spates of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent, here is a link to the coverage at The Daily Beast. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well that explains one of the few other edits I noticed. [208] Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Yemeni Civil War

Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been trying to get a few editors to work through a content dispute on this article for a few days. All of the editors have been warned repeatedly that the article is subject to WP:GS/ISIL discretionary sanctions, but nonetheless after a few rounds of somewhat productive discussion, two of the editors have gone back to just sniping at each other and generally being disruptive. Some of you may have already seen my post earlier today at WP:AN about an image at Commons being overwritten by a local image, which turned out to be a file extension issue and a silly oversight on my part (and nothing to do with local files). Well, there's more to it than that.

The discussion at the talk page tailed off several days ago without being resolved. Then, yesterday, Chilicheese22 decided they would implement their proposed changes anyway, and edited out a section of the article which had been the focus of the dispute. They also uploaded a new version of File:Yemeni Civil War.svg reflecting the changes they argued for in the unresolved discussion. Panam2014 spotted this, and set off a revert war on Commons which is past 5RR for both of them at this point. This was reported at ANEW, where administrator Coffee declined action as they correctly observed that the revert war is on Commons and we can't do anything about it here.

Apparently not satisfied with just one revert war, Chilicheese22 also uploaded a second copy of their preferred map, File:Yemeni Civil War.jpg, and inserted it in the article in place of the .svg image. That was when I posted at AN, but after figuring out what had happened I reverted the file link change to the previous consensus version. They also uploaded a third version of the same map, File:Yemeni Civil War1.png, and later they reverted my revert, so that their preferred version of the map is currently visible in the article.

In the meantime, Panam2014 has posted on numerous talk pages and administrative noticeboards seeking sanctions against Chilicheese22, including repeated threats to escalate to this board (again: I only tried to intervene in the first place because of a post here a couple weeks ago) and unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, despite me and several others repeatedly asking them to deescalate and focus on the content. Panam2014's insistence on running to administrators at any sign of conflict has seriously and repeatedly undermined efforts to resolve the conflict.

In frustration I have blocked them both, despite the fact that my ill-fated attempt to mediate may put me in an involvement situation. This whole thing is clearly beyond my skill to resolve, so I ask for the community to review. And if one of you reading this is an admin at Commons, maybe pop over there and take a look at these images. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have advised both of the editors to leave comments on their talk pages regarding this thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons activity can be taken into account here. I certainly will block here if an editor repeatedly uploads copyvios on Commons and uses them here. In this case you have more latitude per discretionary sanctions. If their activity on Commons is causing disruption here I'd say levy a one month topic ban, covering articles but not talk pages, making it clear that messing about on Commons will result in blocks here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Panam2014 has now managed to convince an admin at Commons that Chilicheese22 edited logged out, and won't stop pinging me in celebration. Does this sound like someone who's interested in resolving a conflict? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: "unfounded claims of sockpuppetry" also came from Chilicheese - see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Panam2014 (now deleted). I might have more to add later, when I'm not on mobile and can see what they've been up to since the last ANI. ansh666 04:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Going from bottom to top because why not. First: I wouldn't say that Panam2014 pinging you is either hounding or gravedancing, as you linked to. You're the blocking admin, and they're trying to explain their side. Perhaps a bit overzealous, but not malicious - which is actually a good descriptor for Panam as a whole.

Second: I'd say both blocks are good and well-deserved. Cross-wiki is a bit of a blind spot but it unambiguously affects the article on this wiki. Quite disruptive either way. And since the disruption seems to only be ratcheting up since the last ANI, I think a ban for both from at least the article and at most a topic ban on the war could be warranted here. That said, as I stated at the first ANI, I personally think Chilicheese22 needs to cool things down a bit - from their very first edits they've been accusing people of disruptive edits and sockpuppetry, while barely staying out of 1RR, sometimes by minutes (e.g. [209][210]). Meanwhile Panam (and Nuke) need to remember WP:BRD and not to respond to reverting by more reverting. ansh666 06:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I accept your criticism; blocked users indeed have a right to ask constructive questions of the blocking admin. Whether or not celebrating that another user has been blocked is constructive commentary I will leave to reviewers; at any rate I will strike the comment. For Panam's part when I asked them to stop pinging me they did. Actually over the two weeks or so since the last ANI I'd observed that all of the users involved in the dispute were willing to discuss the content issue with reference to sources and everything, and left the article alone even as your protection had expired and I declined to restore it. So as events unfolded yesterday I became more and more disappointed as I discovered that in fact the editors had simply taken the exact same dispute to pages I wasn't watching and kept right on with the same disruptive behaviour, for example at Template talk:Yemeni Civil War detailed map and all over Commons. In my brief foray into this subject I've learned that the leader of one of the primary belligerents in this civil war switched allegiances on 2 December and was killed on 4 December by his former allies, and that has obviously thrown a lot of confusion into the situation, however the content dispute and revert warring by these two and NuclearWizard predates these events by at least a week, and perhaps as far back as July when this page was last full-protected.

For my part, I now thoroughly regret having tried to help these editors in the first place. Perhaps some kind of limited or broad topic ban is in order but it's not going to come from me: I'm done adminning in this subject area. Both of the blocked users have unreviewed unblock requests on their talk pages, if any of you would like to take a look, I don't object. Otherwise both blocks expire by this time tomorrow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm also regretting it. As far as I can tell the crux of the argument going back to before my initial protection is whether the Southern Movement and Southern Transitional Council deserve to be mentioned as separate entities or not. It's clear both sides think they're right and the other is wrong, not only content-wise but also behavior-wise, and they seem to be unwilling or unable to compromise, hence blocks and suggestions of topic banning. I'm uncomfortable taking action myself for various reasons (involvement not being one of them) but I do hope someone else steps up. If a topic ban is levied I'd suggest it apply to all article-facing content (i.e. image, template, module, etc.) since the dispute is spilling over just about everywhere. @Chilicheese22: Panam didn't post at the discussion because they're blocked like you. Besides, there's no need to notify or ping you for every comment they make as you seem to think; that's what watchlists are for. @Panam2014: it doesn't matter whether it's 1RR or 3RR or whatever or wherever, blocks and sanctions can come for edit warring in general even if you don't cross the bright line, as long as it affects this project. To both of you: please stop this dispute and find something else to edit once the block runs out, okay? ansh666 20:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666 and Ivanvector: For beginning, please see here (I have clean up my talk page. After that, I do not know if I have the right but I propose to made a RfC or ask a mediator to settle the dispute. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

For any admin that didn't see my response, and is interested on my "two cents" on what has transpired on the Yemeni Civil war article. Please see here [211]. Thanks. Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666, Chilicheese22, and Panam2014: I concur with Panam's first proposal; there should be a RfC on whether or not the STC exists and/or what its nature is. This dispute explodes everywhere precisely because the claim is that the STC does not exist -- therefore, since the STC's existence is relevant to every article, template, and image in which the STC is relevant, this issue will simply continue to expand unless the issue of whether the STC exists or not is resolved. I'm not sure how to compromise on whether or not this entity exists. Nuke (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Edited. Nuke (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC sounds good, but everyone needs to agree that whatever consensus comes out of it must be followed, and if the disputes continue after the RfC is concluded, topic bans at the very least - and probably more - will likely be handed out. Also, as far as the process goes: I'd suggest that, during any RfC on the matter, the three of you only make a single short statement and not respond to each other (or anyone else unless specifically asked). It would be a chance to get an outside opinion on the matter, and I wouldn't want you to waste it by rehashing all of the wall-of-text arguments you've been having and making other people not want to deal with the problem like Ivan. ansh666 07:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: For my part, I engage myself. But as in the past, contributors participated in the writing of the article, and we posted in the talk page, I think it is interesting to notify them. However, I think it would be, as Ansh says, to rehearse the arguments for and against the addition of the STC, but I think that if there are new sources, it is important to mention them. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: I also think an rfc is a good idea, do you think it is better for us to reference the whole discussion, or have it in a bullet point format, where we list our stances and underneath them place the sources. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Jamesharrison2014

jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) is not here to contribute to build an encyclopedia. Instead, this users edits have focused on promoting a non-notable journalist, Michael Moates (deleted twice) and blog Nation One News Foundation (deleted). Both pages have been deleted.

Jamesharrison2014 claims not to have a WP:COI with Michael Moates. [212]. It is possible that Jamesharrison2014 is a sockpuppet of Mmoates (talk · contribs), who created the first version of Michael Moates (first AFD).

Jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) has been nothing but disruptive Wikipedia. Some examples:

• A previous ANI was initiated by ValarianB (talk · contribs) because jamesharrison2014 was repeated reinserting user talk page messages deleted by ValarianB.
• Jamesharrison2014 has been separately admonished for uncivil comments made at wikimedia commons.
• The user has removed article talk comments that questioned the notability of Michael Moates. [213][214] [215] [216][217]. There are other examples on the now deleted promo pages. The user felt that these comments were personal attacks. The user was removing article talk page comments while reinserting comments on ValarianB’s user talk.
• Jamesharrison2014 has also removed comments from Lacypaperclip (talk · contribs) talk page claiming that they were personal attacks.
• Jamesharrison2014 has posted vandalism noticed on talk pages for Eduardo89 (talk · contribs) after a single revert to remove Moates’ name.
• Jamesharrison2014 asked for White House Press Corps to be protected to prevent the removal of Moate’s name. When then request was declined, the user reverted the response from Ymblanter (talk · contribs) and posted the request again. Jamesharrison2014 self reverted this change [218], so I’m striking this comment. Billhpike (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Jamesharrison2014 has uploaded several images to Wikimedia Commons that are lifted from Michael Moate’s official Facebook page [219] [220]. The exif data from these images indicates that they were copied from Moates’ Facebook page. When uploading the images, Jamesharrison2014 claimed that the images were his own work. Jamesharrison2014 has insisted that the images were “open source” and that he never claimed ownership [221], but the metadata for the deleted files indicates otherwise.
• Jamesharrison2014 filed a bad-faith arbcom case (edit: archive link) against me. As of 14:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC), 9 members of arbcom have declined to hear the case and suggested the user try ANI. (WP:BOOMERANG).

Billhpike (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The statements made above are completely false. Billhpike is not following procedures put in place by Wikipedia. Personal attacks are not allowed and I did not delete any comments I inserted the personal attacks tag to show that the comments were personal attacks against a person. I reinserted the comments on Vivians page as she continued to break policies this was over time and continued to happen. Also the claim that the images are from a Facebook page are false. The images were pulled from the White House Youtube channel. Just because the images are similar is not evidence that they were pulled from one single source. Being new to wikipedia I am still learning the processes however I have done more than just the two pages Billhpike is refering to. I am not a sockpupet account and he has no evidence to support the claim. His entire arguement is based of the fact that an image was pulled from Facebook but it was actually pulled from a non-copyrighted youtube channel. He has continued to attack me as much as he can across multiple wiki networks and I am just trying to learn the ropes and create content. I have contributed Omarosa, Sarah Sanders and a few others outside of the other pages listed. The claim he has made is baseless. Also, the request for protection on WH press corps was a secondary request after continued reverting and edit waring which obviously was needed since the admin approved it.

Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The EXIF data indicated that this image was downloaded from Facebook. Billhpike (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014, this is a wiki and everyone can see everyone else's edit history; we can all see perfectly well that you've removed numerous comments with which you've disagreed. If you feel you had a legitimate reason to remove them, explain what you feel that legitimate reason was, but don't insult our intelligence by lying. ‑ Iridescent 15:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please provide an example of where I removed article talk page comments. Billhpike (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Replied to wrong user Billhpike (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jamesharrison, while I may look smashing in a dress if the mood strikes, my name is not "Vivian". Also, you dont get to slap template after template on my or any other user's talk page, and revert-war to redo them. Being in an argument with you is not an attack on you, and if there is anything that you feel I did that did violate WP:NPA then your avenue was to come to this board and file a complaint, as I had to do to you.. Last, if your rebuttal to the image lifting is true, then please provide a link to the youtube channel and a timestamp of when and where you grabbed the image from. ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014 removed comments from either Talk:Michael Moates or Talk:Nation One News Foundation (can’t remember) that questioned the notability of the article subject. Billhpike (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Troll, ip hopping in order to harass

Another day, another batch of reverts by the same troll using different ip addresses to evade 3RR blocks: here, here, here and here. Prior to this, they have followed me to Church of St Edward the Confessor, Romford, here, and Wilkie Bard, here, not to mention a whole host of other articles. The IP locates to the same part of England. This is not a coincidence and is tantamount to harassment. Cassianto^Talk 19:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The range is far too busy to block as there's plenty of valid edits coming from it. Special:Contributions/82.132.128.0/17. The range belongs to Telefonica O2 UK, which means it's people (probably many different people, judging by the diverse subject matter and the pace of the edits) editing from their cell phones. As you probably know, such editors are assigned a new IP pretty much every time they visit the site, or when they change their location and are being served from a different cell phone tower. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

NeilN kindly blocked one of them for their disruptive behaviour on Kenneth Williams. I don't fall for them being different people, sorry. Cassianto^Talk 22:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe what Diannaa meant is that the editors on the range as a whole are many different people, which is why the range can't be blocked to deal with the one or two trolls amongst them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I also implied that blocking one IP will have no impact, because the next time the harasser accesses the Internet from their mobile device, their service provider will assign them a new IP. The person is not intentionally IP-hopping; they but they are intentionally taking advantage of how cell phone Internet access works to evade being blocked for any length of time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I looked into this the first time it happened and came to the same conclusion as Diannaa. I've placed a note here which will be enough for most admins patrolling WP:AIV to block should you wish to make a quick report there (please include a link to the note) and prevent quibbles about edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a workable solution I think. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, thanks for that. I hadn't heard of that particular noticeboard. Is that somewhere where anyone can post? Bearing in mind this, would you advise that I treat the reverts under the same caveat at WP:3rr and revert per vandalism? I'm keen to avoid any dramah should I be blocked and the blocking admin will undoubtedly not see your note if they've not bothered to look into the situation before blocking me. Would you recommend using the link to your note as an edit summary upon each revert? Cassianto^Talk 09:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Anyone can post at AIV. You'll get the occasional admin who will say, "AIV is for vandals or spammers only, post to ANI" but most will block if obvious evidence of block evasion is provided. The reason why I mention AIV is because it's usually faster than ANI but please make sure the IP is active (i.e., edited within the last couple hours). It's no use blocking an IP if the user has hopped to a different IP range. As for reverts, you can revert per WP:3RRNO #3 (reverts of socks of blocked users don't count for 3RR). Adding a link to my post in your edit summary is a good idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cassianto^Talk 18:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

Hi. Last month I requested a rangeblock on an IP address that keeps adding content with no sources or poorly formatted updates to cricket articles. This IP was blocked for one month. However, they've come straight back and are doing the same thing, jumping between sevel different ranges (117.228, 117.223 and 49.34). Here are some examples just from today unsourced under 49.34 range and unsourced under 117 range. To say this is frustrating is an understatement. Impossible to communicate with them, they just continue jumping from IP to IP, with EVERY edit requiring scrutiny. There didn't seem to be any collateral damage from the last block, so I'm requesting that all three ranges are blocked again for another month. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Still adding unsourced with yet another IP address. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's several wide ranges that would need to be blocked. Is semi-protection an option? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The 117.228 range was blocked for a month in November, and as far as I know, that didn't cause problems in that range. Maybe a shorter block (say until the end of the month) across those three ranges would be a compromise instead of a month-long (or longer) block? Maybe they'll take the hint with that. Semi-protection might be a long-term option, as it's mainly across articles in these categories one and two, but not always. Any ideas/suggestions/solutions about this would be most appreicated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I reblocked 117.228.0.0/16 for a month. It's difficult for me to make sense of some of these edits, but there's enough disruption to warrant a block. The edits on the other ranges are even harder for me to figure out. The IP editors seem to include sources sometimes, and there doesn't seem to be as much blatant disruption, like blanking. I think it would be best if an admin who knows what they're doing looked at those ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NRP - I appreciate you taking time to look into this. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?

 – Alex Shih (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Coffee and his FAULTY assumptions on Andrew McCabe

WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 06:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. @Coffee: BLP policy does NOT in any way shape or form require potential violations be "blatant", BLP policy requires caution in controversial edits, and By any reasonable interpretation and practices, BLP policy trumps discretionary sanctions. You are so obviously wrong and your threat -- and it's a threat, not a warning -- is so out of line that it's clear to me that you're not merely mistaken, you're actively putting your thumb on the scales. Is that how you want to procede? Mr Bolick (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Mr Bolick - What exactly are you asking for here? If you're speaking directly to Coffee, do so on his user talk page here, please... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Also, WP:BLP and WP:ACDS do not "trump" one another, they coincide. The BLP policy applies to BLP articles at all times and with no exceptions. Discretionary sanctions allow for uninvolved administrators to enforce this policy using extra measures and looser restrictions, and to keep the editing and discussion environment positive and free of disruption... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At Talk:Esham

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Esham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What do you make of this? General Ization ^Talk 20:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like someone is asking for help in a roundabout way if their post on User talk:DannyMusicEditor is any indication. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I read it as an attempt to WP:OWN the article's content and/or possibly to intimidate (or that it might have that effect). General Ization ^Talk 21:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Never fear, the diligent patrollers of Wikipedia have assumed the worst, and blocked the account as promotional, despite it not actually making any promotional edits. fish&karate 14:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the username and edits, are you opposed to the block? I don't think there's been any assuming at play here. Cjhard (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tornado chaser

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has been repeatedly harassing me and vandalizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManShacks (talk • contribs) 03:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been making unsourced comments about the DEA. He has taken the right action in asking you to stop. Mitch32^{(The many fail: the one succeeds.)} 03:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

OP indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Near-orphaning of English language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• English language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Niteshift36 has recently removed links to English language from many pages, claiming that they are a case of WP:OVERLINK because everyone knows what English is. I find these mass edits profoundly unhelpful, because the article does much more than tell readers what English is, it also tells them a long list of stuff about English, things that the average user almost certainly does not know already. Moreover, the edits were done without any kind of discussion or consensus building, and from their talk page it is clear that there are plenty of editors who disagree with the sudden change. Some have noted that WP:MEATBOT applies here, because it is a case of mass edits done with the help of a tool. Per WP:BRD, I believe the objections by other editors warrant that the edits are all reverted, a discussion started, and the edits only reinstated once there is clear consensus. Rua (mew) 20:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The edits in question are these. That's 462 links removed using Twinkle's unlink backlinks feature. – Uanfala (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, 462....leaving THOUSANDS still in place. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Might be interesting to explain how you chose the LARGE number to be edited, and how you chose the LARGE number that were not edited. As far as other editors can tell it is just a first batch of work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Let's start with some hyperbole, right? "Near-orphaning"? There's still THOUSANDS of links to that article. Thousands. So can we agree that ist's not even close to orphaned? WP:OVERLINKING states that "Everyday words understood by most readers in context." should not be linked. Quite obviously, everyone reading the English wikipedia understands what English is. If they did not, they won't understand the article at the other end of the pointless link either. I'm not saying the article on English has no use. Clearly, it does. What it doesn't need is links to it spammed everywhere. Many of those opposing it have failed to articulate an actual specific case. In some cases, a piped link to a more specific article may be appropriate, but not just one to English. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• This edit I would consider unhelpful, since a mix of link and no-link ("English and Filipino") is pointless and unappealing; when a tool is used to do it en masse, like Twinkle was in this case, it's grounds for removal of the tool if repeated. Moreover, edits like this are disruptive and warrant mass rollback and a firm warning not to repeat under penalty of sanctions. Yes, some of these articles don't need links, but when it's highly relevant to the context, it's important to have the link to the article; removing a link to English language from the article on the geographically connected Manx language is like removing a link to 27 December from the article on 4 December. This is functionally the same as WP:CONTEXTBOT: we require link changes to be done or overseen by a human because bots can't think and humans can, but when a human's exercising about as much judgement as a bot, it's time to revert if done once, and time to impose sanctions if the revert get reverted. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• You're thinking too short-sighted. Yes, there may be ones where it's appropriate to restore, but the vast majority are not. And there's nothing wrong with having one language linked and the other not linked. Example: If English was linked in the sentence before it, we wouldn't link English again simply because it was next to Filipino. In the end, there may be a handful of places that it is appropriate, but in the majority, it's not. It's more logical to restore the dozen correct ones than to restore 450 unnecessary ones. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No I think in terms of any rational analysis it is easier to restore, and only remove links where an examination of the specific context has been made. The cost/damage of an extra wl is basically zero.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I bet you're not willing to examine those links individually, are you? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the 3 on my watchlist carefully. I don't get your question. Why is it so strange to read something you are about to edit? Is there some urgent need to make blind edits on hundreds of articles? Please explain. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Nightshift, you've deleted the whole section of discussion from your talk page. Will you add it here as indicated in your edit summary. Here is my answer to your response to me:

• That is obviously an exaggeration and neither honest nor constructive. You are saying that because people know what the English language is there is no point having a link to an article about the English language. That is obviously nonsensical, and especially in the cases I see. Two of the articles on my watchlist are linguistic ones, where the links to English are not obvious to all people who know what the English language is. But despite your claim there that I am reacting without thought, it is in fact obvious that your edits are based on a "blanket" policy and no thought at all about context, and that is just plain wrong. On your logic (no exaggeration) there should be no links to articles on well-known subjects???? Please slow down and think about this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I deleted it since the discussion is now here. I made no such claim that the article is pointless. That's a lie and not helpful at all. In fact, in my response above, I made it perfectly clear that it is necessary. If you actually took some time to 1) read what I have said and 2) look at more than just a few articles you have an interest in, you would see that in most cases, the link is superfluous. Rather than go and revert the few occurrences that you can make a case for, you want to mass revert everything, which is essentially the same thing you're arguing against me doing in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BRD. You Boldly removed these links. They're contested. The correct step is now to Revert all of them (emphasis, not shouting) so it can be Discussed as to which are appropriate to remove, and which are not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that BRD isn't a policy, look at what is actually happening. People are contesting edits that they haven't even looked at. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • We're contesting edits that you haven't looked at, either... Rua (mew) 21:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• And that makes it right for you? You actually don't see the conflict in that position? That's almost funny. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing those links amounts to busy-work that's somewhere between useless and offensive. The editor should put them all back and then be topic-banned on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Topic banned? From what topic? If it's busy work, then why are you so upset about it? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• You missed the part about it being "between useless and offensive". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't miss it. I was holding out hope that you had an actual reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to hear your actual reason for doing this stuff. Who does it serve? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• If you don't know the reason, then you clearly haven't read what I've written. Go read WP:OVERLINKING and maybe that will clear it up for you. But then, you probably think the MOS is useless. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think this wouldn't have happened if Niteshift36 hadn't been able to make such a large number of changes using a single click on Twinkle. I've started a more general discussion at WP:VPR#Twinkle's "unlink backlinks" feature and meatbot edits. – Uanfala (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Key phrase to the overlinking policy is "in context". That means if someone is going to use automated tools to remove links I expect there to be sufficient time to review the link in context. If the removes were done at a rate of one article every minute or two (enough time for a human to judge context) I don't think it would be an issue, but mass removal shows there was no human review of each change done. This is not an acceptable use of automated tools (see BetaCommand cases for that). --Masem (t) 20:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm willing to bet you haven't reviewed a dozen of them, but you're willing to undo everything. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Neither have you, so that's a good reason to undo them pending review. Rua (mew) 21:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I have reviewed many of them. But keep up that bad faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I’ve picked away at a few of the ones that showed up on my watchlist, restoring the link where context warranted. While I don’t consider it an optimally responsible use of an automated tool, the encyclopedia will probably survive this episode. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Look at this infobox and tell me Does it look normal or helpful to you ? ... No it doesn't, Whilst I understand "English" may well be spammed everywhere the appropriate thing to do is get consensus for the removal .... Not use Twinkle to mass remove these, You're making the whole "Twinkle should be a right" thing a more sensible thing with stupid edits like these, I would strongly suggest you revert them all otherwise the next best step is for someone to revert for you and for you to be topic banned from this as well as have Twinkle disabled for you, Your choice. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I never said Twinkle was a right. I honestly made a good faith move that I did not think would be this controversial. But then again, I didn't think that I'd have people like you start with "stupid edits" and the other bullshit I've seen in these discussions. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I never said you did however various editors here believe Twinkle should be a right and what I'm saying is you're kinda proving their point. What would you call removing 420 links without any consensus ? ... Great edits?.... Exactly, Regardless of that your edits are controversial and as such as per WP:BRD you should revert and seek consensus. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Then revert them. You're all into BRD.... so I did the B part, you go do the R part. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's not how BRD works!, You were Bold, You were Reverted, and now You Discuss, I shouldn't even need to be explaining this Niteshift!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Also just to note WP:BRD-NOT does state and I quote "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.", So again as per BRD you need to revert and discuss otherwise simply put you may end up blocked. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, bulk editing without being extremely careful is NORMALLY bad.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Point not addressed above yet. Probably obvious but the English language article is a language article, not just an article saying English is what they speak in England. The link between Old High German and English is not something everyone knows or has at their fingers, for example. Many or all of the deleted links are like the one on Old High German, or Language, which are going to help readers remind themselves of non obvious things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• And that's why I never unlinked things like Old English or any of the other forms, just the overly broad "English" one. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Mass edits like these should be discussed before they're made. There's no way a bot would be approved to make edits like these, and if it did so without prior approval it would be blocked and we'd be discussing sanctions for the operator. If Niteshift36 can explain to the community's satisfaction how they chose those 400-odd articles, they should be strongly reprimanded not to continue until a discussion has identified which sorts of links are desirable and which aren't. If the selection was random, they should all be reverted (the mass rollback script exists for lapses of judgement like these). And really, Twinkle's unlink feature should be restricted to admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• See, you're "strongly reprimanding" something that isn't happening. I haven't done anymore since earlier today when the topic came up. It's that kind of over-reacting that makes this adversarial. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"I made a mess of things, now you go clean it up" is not a good way to make friends and sway people to your cause... --Tarage (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing most of these people have written indicates a desire to listen, let alone a desire for friendship. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Revert them all. I won't use Twinkle to do it again. I'll make individual edits. Done. Can I get back to something more productive now? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Balans

• Balans (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there! An IP keeps posting an alleged better version of "Balans" on its page (which is just poppycock). As the GA writer, I have reverted his edits and tried to tell them they're wrong. However, the IP seems to not stop reverting to his allegedly better version. You can also check the disturbing message he left on my user page. Btw, they use the pronoun "our", which may indicate a sock puppet. Best of regards and thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 24 hours per the 3RR report, but as I noted there, I have a feeling this one will eventually become an indefinite block. (And if any admin wants to extend my block, go for it). only (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Thank you for blocking and helping . I hope you're getting my point. As the GA writer, it makes me angry when an IP reverts my hard work with his alleged "better" version consisting of a few poorly-written paragraphs with almost no sources. He also claimed my version was allegedly "copied" from somewhere and that "[I] have absolutely no idea wtf [I am] talking about"... Merry christmas to you ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoon network freak (talk • contribs)

To be fair, I don't think he's trying to claim the article is a copyright violation, but, rather, he's trying to claim it's written about a "leaked" version of the song and not an official one. He's claiming the song was released in violation of copyright. At least that's the understanding I'm getting out of his commentary. Yes, he did put a copy-vio tag on it, but I think that's because he doesn't know how to use Wikipedia. But, I could be wrong... I'm not 100% what he's getting at. only (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Only: I also don't get what he's saying. He claims that the official version of "Balans" released in 2016 on iTunes and other platform was "unofficial", and that a new 2017 remixed version — which he wrote his version about — is official... if that makes any sense... Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed - and the official song video released on YouTube in 2016 appears to have been published by the singer herself. A case of WP:RBI, I think. (Although in the article, perhaps a paragraph on the newer release could be added, assuming there's a reliable source? Actually, I see it's already mentioned in the article) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

More block evasion from Armanjarrettp

• Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs)

Same as before, as seen here.

• ESZCocoran426 (talk · contribs)

Poor grammar, using previously made articles to change other transit templates. Yet another sock account. Cards84664 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

IP address removed

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain why the IP address was removed from this edit? As far as I can recall, the edit was performed by an IP. Dr. K. 20:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been fully suppressed, so only someone with CheckUser privilege could tell you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Oversight, not CheckUser Most likely someone who accidentally edited logged out and requested suppression. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Boing!. I suspected that much, given no record of the visibility change appeared in the deletion log. I think it was an IP, but even if it was not, I don't recall any offensive username. Dr. K. 22:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: This reason is plausible. Dr. K. 22:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

IP hopping, probably block evasion by User:Pocketthis

172.58.24.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 172.58.20.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc.

Edit warring from multiple IP addresses on the article DUI_in_California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Probably block evasion by Pocketthis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the IPs keep restoring content that the blocked user added in the past. BytEfLUSh | Talk 22:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article for 72 hours, BytEfLUSh, to stop block evading IPs. I will extend the protection if the disruption resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) BytEfLUSh | Talk 22:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Immediate attention in Al-Kindi article

Hi, Immediate attention is needed in Al-Kindi article (check talk for the discussion) the user Farawahar violate Wikipedia's citation policy by using unreliable tertiary source for Al-Kindi's background that can't be verified by a secondary source. He goes against the academic consensus of his origin, then when asked multiple times to provide secondary references to support his assertion instead of the disruptive edits.. he simply ignore.

I only ask him to provide credible secondary sources oppose to the unverified tertiary reference he cling firmly to.

Nabataeus (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This is content dispute and both of you deserve block for serious edit warring. Looking through the History of the page you have been reverting each other for five days straight: 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 December. You shouldn't have run here after you just reverted him in your ongoing editwarring. Ammarpad (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know if i have the right to post here about this case or not. Please note that after discussing on the talk page about this topic, i wanted to include the words « he has been described as Persian » i saw in « Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures » which is used on Wikipedia as reliable. I based myself on several Wikipedia articles which use this source as reliable (i’ll provide you the links of the articles if you ask me to do so). More, after being reverted by Nabataeus several times when i tried to include the source above, i decided to ask on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about it and an administrator told me that although it’s tertiary, it should be ok and that if controversial, additional sources may be useful; i understood this sentence as « all users can add sources in the way to obtain a well balanced consensual article » (i must inform you that i’m of Polish origin and English is not my mother tongue, so i may have misunderstood the administrator’s sentence). In my mind, i was reverting a vandal who systematically removed referenced information. If i made a mistake, then sorry for any inconveniance and since this is the usual procedure for this kind of case, i agree to be blocked without any problem.

By the way, merry christmas to everybody.

Farawahar (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the administrator statement:

The article on the encyclopaedia is a poor thing, with only one (affiliated) source, but the book itself has run to three editions with a mainstream publisher, so although it is tertiary and not secondary it should be OK, provided the ethnicity is not a matter of controversy. If it is controversial then I'd recommend additional sources. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's tertiary (I presume you know what it means..) And it should be ok: britannica status ok. The administrator made it pretty clear and even in his tone that it should be treated with caution. Moreover your tertiary source violate Wikipedia's policies:

• The distinction between tertiary and secondary sources is important, because WP:No original research policy states: "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

• Simple facts: A tertiary source is most often used for reference citations for basic and fairly trivial facts that are not likely to be disputed and can be verified in other sources. Examples include various vernacular names for a species, the pronunciation of a foreign word, or a baseball player's statistics in a particular year.

i took the effort and time to provide references and walk you through it, even explaining with patience how Al-Kindi origin is conclusively established.

But you somehow managed to cling firmly to unreliable tertiary source that you're incapable of verifying by a secondary sources when asked multiple times! the policy is clear and explicit. Provide reliable materials. Simple. I asked you for it nicely from the start. What do you want me to do other than that?

Best regards. And merry christmas to you and everyone.

Nabataeus (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Threat by SPA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that this threat by blocked SPA Antonios Skaras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to inform the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, qualifies as a threat. I don't think this qualifies as an explicit legal threat, but it is a threat nonetheless and I think it qualifies for a block upgrade. For background please refer to the talkpage of the SPA and to this AIV report. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That's hardly a threat; it's not like the foreign ministry can do much about non-Greeks residing outside of Greece. However, it's definitely not helpful, definitely not why talk page access is permitted for blocked users; I'd advise someone to end talk-page access. But maybe I'm biased because I'm the admin who blocked this user in the first place? Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I am actually Greek, and this was meant as a threat. Removing talkpage access is a good idea. But upgrading the block should demonstrate to this SPA that he cannot threaten other editors. Dr. K. 01:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not a explicit "threat to sue", but it's absolutely intended to cause a chilling effect. TPA revocation inbound. I just noticed the initial block wasn't indef, so for the moment, swiching to indef and warning per WP:NLT, if he continues after this, TPA revocation time.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both and Best of the Season to you both. Dr. K. 01:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And after they chose to double down (with the by-this-point-its-a-surprise-if-it-isnt-said "not a threat" wording), demonstrating they have zero interest in being here to build an encyclopedia, TPA revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

He also tried to quiz me on my knowledge of Greek. It was a lost cause from the get go. Dr. K. 02:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nationality vandalism at Rula Jebreal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Rula Jebreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2018caust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tonight it's a change from Palestinian to Israeli at an arbitration sanction article, so I probably can not revert, lest it be taken for edit warring. Given recent history, page protection may be in order, too. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The user definitely changed content without a reference to this article. I've left a discretionary sanctions alert on this user's talk page. As for protection, I'll add pending changes protection. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah, and best wishes for the new year. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You bet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats from editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Tony1 posted this [222]. He wrote: "This is going to end badly for you. I will take action elsewhere if you persist.", "You're the insulter-assuming that I'm a christian", "Then it becomes a legal issue". If I understood correctly he is making threats against me. His whole demeanour is totally unacceptable. He is rude, insulting, arrogant and now he started threatening me. I explained everything thoroughly, I listed a number of similar pages, I tried to conduct a proper discussion with arguments but he is only interested in imposing his opinion. He left the article for days with an incoherent phrase in the introduction and when I reverted his disruptive edit he started asking for an explanation. He accused me of sarcasm because I wrote "with all due respect" and then he attacked me because I wished him "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year." This is a first for me. I was attacked because I wished someone Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I know it sounds unbelievable but you can take a look at the whole thing right here. Now he is making threats. I defer to the administartors. Gtrbolivar (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a legal threat. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I took it to mean that the situation will be "judged" at WP:ANEW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely took it as a legal threat. "I will take action elsewhere if you persist" - That, in itself, I would agree with you NeilN to mean that he intends to take it to a noticeboard, for sure. But when he added "Then it becomes a legal issue" at the very end, I took it to mean that it was a threat of legal action. If others disagree, please let me know. I'll unblock if enough others say that it is not, but this is how I took it as well... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat. He meant he would take it further on WP. Oshwah, please unblock with a note in the log that it was a misunderstanding. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Could well be a misunderstanding, but "Then it becomes a legal issue" is a legal threat unless it can be explained as otherwise -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 03:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This is what pushed me to agree and constitute this as WP:NLT... Otherwise, I wouldn't have call it such if that sentence had not been there... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not a WP:NLT legal threat, but it's enough of a threat to be disruptive and in my view draw a block. Nonspecific legal threats are highly disruptive and have a serious chilling effect. The difference is that the motivation to avoid disruption to the community by continued editing during the pendency of legal action isn't there. But it's still highly disruptive and should draw a block or some other sanction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It qualifies. And it's not the first time the user made a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

For reference, the old ANI thread that triggered the old NLT block: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Gross incivility, threats of off-wiki harassment, and personal attacks by Tony1. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Then it becomes a legal issue" is clear enough to justify the block. Of course, if the editor is willing to retract and states he does not intend legal action, I'd support an unblock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I left a follow-up on his talk page explaining this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 6)Editors sometimes treat these boards as courtrooms, presenting their case, and awaiting judgement. But it would be good if Tony1 clarified. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what Tony1 meant by his comments, though I agree with the OP that they were unduly harsh, and I know from experience that this editor can have some rough edges. But given that the meaning wasn't clear, a note to the editor might have been better as an administrator's first step in this situation, before jumping to an indefinite block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

He meant legal as in actionable, but he was clearly talking about actionable on here. I think it's important to unblock soon because this is obviously a misunderstanding. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Agree that “Then it becomes a legal issue” constitutes a legal threat. Also agree unblocking upon retraction would be acceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

If he clarifies or retracts it, I'll unblock him immediately. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• How is "then it becomes a legal issue" not a legal threat? How does it mean "then it becomes actionable on Wikipedia"? Drmies (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Work at WP:ANEW enough and you'll see some editors give $300/hour lawyers a run for their money :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• NeilN, I just saw I got 398 edits at ANEW, and 5,345 at ANI (and 907 at AN), but this definition of "legal" is new to me. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, he has retired, so it seems unlikely that he'll do that soon. What kind of legal threat was it, do you imagine? Can we sue people for arguing with us on Wikipedia? If so, the courts are going to be busy. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: "Can we sue people for arguing with us on Wikipedia?" - obviously that's a no, but its the chilling effect of making a legal threat which causes a problem. For all we know, its a big misunderstanding, and I fully expect the editor to respond clarifying -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 03:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

My impression was that the word "legal" in this sense referred to one of the boards where disputes are referred to rather than lawyers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sorry, but this is a very hasty block; I agree with SlimVirgin and Newyorkbrad, there is an misunderstanding here and jumping to indefinite block almost immediately on an experienced editor is a unwise idea here I think. The block should be lifted. Alex Shih (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be a legal threat, it doesn't need to be a credible or meritorious legal threat, it just needs to be a threat to take legal action. Usually it involves a threat conditioned on some act or omission on Wikipedia, but it needn't. You can cause all kinds of havoc through legal process, even if it's completely frivolous and vexatious. And in any event, we shouldn't require our editors to be able to discern whether a legal threat made by another editor is meritorious, or have to seek legal advice as to the merits or specificity of a particular legal threat: Legal threats simply should not be made on Wikipedia. That said, I'm not in agreement that this is a legal threat under NLT, though I do believe it's disruptive enough to merit a block because it represents the use of a nonspecific legal threat to cause a chilling effect in the reader. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)"I will take action elsewhere" could well mean one of the dramahboards, but "then it becomes a legal issue" is explicitly intended as a WP:CHILLINGEFFECT - which, noteworthily, redirects to Wikipedia:No legal threats. Block-until-retracted is in that case entirely proper and justified by policy, and (given the below which edit-conflicted with my comments before the comma), we're all good now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The user has clarified their statement, and hence I have unblocked his account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I see that hairtrigger application of NLT has once again kept Wikipedia a healthy community of productive editors. While I can't for the life of me understand how Tony1 could have let the words-which-dare-not-speak-their-name pass his metaphorical lips, I think it's time all admins get a special reminder that NLT says: Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention. EEng 08:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indefinite blocks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I ask you to impose an Indefinite blocks on me. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Vyacheslav84:Hi, we usually do not block users who request blocks on themselves. However you can change your password to something you don't know, if you feel that you can't stop editing :). Cheers! -- Luk ^talk 12:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the block. Do I need to Wikipedia:Vandalism to get a block? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Just reset your password and log out. You might want to come back later. -- Luk ^talk 12:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

After that - no. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This user already requested, and obtained, an indef block about a month ago. They later asked to be unblocked, which was granted, and then started a doomed and sock-infested DRV. I'm not sure what the point is here. Reyk _YO! 12:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Vyacheslav84 - If you want to force yourself away from the project for a bit, you can use the WikiBreak Enforcer script to accomplish this. It basically does the same thing, minus a change to your block log of course... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(edit conflict) It's better for the editor and project that the block be a self-requested one rather than one for disruption/vandalism (as threatened above). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

NeilN - At that point (where the user threatens to get blocked either way), I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I predict he'll ask to be unblocked in a few weeks and then immediately start whining about Westarctica again. Reyk _YO! 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be the editor is approaching WP:NOTHERE. Even if the next requested unblock of a self requested block is granted, I'm not sure a third will be. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of course, I think unblock requests after self-requested blocks should be declined. Generally speaking, people ask to be blocked because they feel they will succumb to the temptation to edit at some point in the future. Granting such an unblock request is, in effect, invalidating the entire point of the block in the first place. Plus, an editor who is driven to edit to the point of requesting unblock after a self-requested block is, generally speaking, not the kind of editor we want, because they're editing based on that drive, not on rational desire to contribute. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree with what MPants wrote above, with the exception that I would allow one "Get out of jail free" unblock. After that, all self-requested blocks should be indefinite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring to restore NFCC violation and unsourced claims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Walter Görlitz has been blocked at least a dozen times for edit warring and 3RR violations. A few days ago, I removed a clear NFCC violation (nonfree album cover in musician bio, no discussion of cover in article text) from Terry Scott Taylor. Görlitz restored the image and made a non-policy-based justification for his action on my talk page. Two other editors, including one admin, pointed out his error, and explained carefully why the image should be removed (User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#FUR). After twodays, when no other editor supported retaining the image and Walter did not respond, I removed the image again. Walter, without engaging in substantive discussion, has restored the NFCC violation several more times. I have also removed a laundry list of about twenty-five performers supposedly "influenced" by this musician, sourced only to a blog post where one of those twenty-five performers describes a song Thomas wrote as "awesome". Walter also restored that, arguing that "referenced content" cannot be removed even if the reference does not support the claims. It's pretty evident that he either does not understand or is unwilling to follow basic NFCC, RS, and BLP principles. There's no point in waiting until he formally violates 3RR again; this is a longstanding misbehavior pattern without any reasonabnle justification. Since he's abandoned the substantive discussion he began on my talk page, and hasn't engaged with the other editors who tried to explain his errors to him, I don't believe this can be resolved without further intervention. (and, of course, my removal of a clear NFCC violation is exempt from 3RR limits). Perhaps, as long-term remediation, Görlitz could be placed under 1RR limits to prevent further timesinks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no clear NFCC violation as there is a fair use rationale provided on the image. That FUR has not been contested. Despite pointing that out to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, the editor is clearly ignoring the law and using some undefined consensus to support edit warring in removing the image. I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And now that Adam9007 (talk · contribs) has correctly nominated it for deletion, it should only be a short while before it does not exist and the process started by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in the incorrect location will be over. Again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And since the FUR has been removed as invalid, I will remove the image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The FUR wasn't removed; the file copyright tag was removed which actually creates is different problem per WP:F4 since all files are required to have a license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Break 1

What makes that album cover any different from the hundreds and hundreds already used in Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, the vast majority of images of album covers are used only in articles about those specific albums. In occasional cases, they are used in an article about a photographer, for example, if there is critical commentary about the cover photography in the article. In this case, Walter has been trying to use the cover art in a biography of the musician, without any critical commentary of the album cover. That violates WP:NFCI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

So the solution or workaround is to write a separate article about the album? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Look up fair use doctrine, User:Baseball Bugs. It specifically allows use of non-commercially damaging reproductions and excerpts when there is scholarly commentary on that copyrighted item/excerpt. So a mere gallery of album covers is not fair use, but reproducing covers which are famous in themselves is allowed in articles on those albums or covers or cover designers. Evidently this is argued not to be the case in this complaint. I might support action, but where are the supporting diffs, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There was no gallery and there was discussed of the album, although not of the cover (not that there is discussion of the cover art in 95% of album articles I've seen). And in this case, there was a fair use rationale that was applied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did not argue it was invalid nor was there an attempt to dispute the FUR or have the image deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point I'm making. If 95% of album articles have no commentary on the cover, that means 95% of those articles are simply using the album covers as decorations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not "decoration", illustration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly; having the image of the album cover in an article on the album adds to the encyclopedic value and comprehension of the article subject, and is thusthus should be permissible under fair use. Having a random album cover as "here's an album this artist made" in an artist's article does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So, again I say, the workaround is to create a separate article about the album and post the picture there instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Assuming the album is notable, that should be an approprate use, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That gets into a slippery issue. For example, are all Beatles albums automatically notable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(From an NFC standpoint, if an album is notable, then it is presumed there is secondary sources that talk about the album in depth. As such one cover image of that album is within NFCC guidelines as it also implicitly gives the marketing and branding that was associated with the album, along with the "commentary" aspects for fair use for the discussion about the album (see WP:NFCI#1) This only applies to the standalone article on the album - anywhere else, the use must have a proper rationale and should be more than "just to illustrate the album on a different page".) --MASEM (t) 04:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a gallery in that article, did I, Walter? You need to understand a principle being explained when you see one. Your edit history shows a lack of reading comprehension and raises questions of WP:Competence is required. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

To clear up several mistakes by several editors, just because an image fails WP:NFCI it doesn't mean it can't be used. That said, the current rational for its inclusion is using {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} which can only be used as the rational for a standalone album page. This is an insufficient rationale for use on the artist's page (and just arguing "well, this is the only place we're talking about the album since it can't have a separate page" is not a usable rationale/reason for this. But that all said, while one should not edit war over a disputed rationale, disputed rationale is not also an "automatic" NFCC violation that would be exempt from edit warring (that would be if it was a flat-out copyright violation). The image should be discussed appropriately at WP:FFD to determine if its use can on the artist's page can meet NFCC (specifically NFCC#8) and if it can't it should be deleted. If it can, the rational needs to be fixed and use a non-canned rationale to justify the reason. (All that said, I don't think we can justify the image on NFCC#8 grounds - there's very little discussed about the album relative to the artist, so it fails NFC) --MASEM (t) 04:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Masem: Thank you for the voice of reason. Fair use is not a black and white issue. Disputed fair use rationales are serious, but not so serious that they require immediate strong-arm suppression in favor of the person advocating deletion, or admin action against the person advocating fair use. Overreaction to disputed fair use rationales constitutes copyright paranoia, and that is not something that should be encouraged. These issues can, and should, be reasonably resolved via FFD, without edit warring, and without admin intervention. The project has never been harmed by waiting for the correct process to take its course, and I will add that the image has been in use since 2014, so let's not pretend that this is an urgent issue that requires immediate admin intervention. I agree that the NFCC rationale is weak, but regarding the requested admin intervention, the relevant policy here is WP:3RRNO, which very intentionally addresses this specific issue. Edit warring is only allowable if the disputed content is "unquestionably" a copyvio. If we're dealing with a longstanding fair use image, that has an FUR (however debatable), and an established editor advocating in good faith for its continued preservation, that, to me, does not appear to be an "unquestionable" violation in need of one-sided action, but rather a genuine FUR dispute that should and is being hashed out at FFD. Recommend closure of this complaint without action. Swarm ♠ 06:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is the rule about pictures of albums so much more lenient than pictures of living persons? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

While someone is living, there is the possibility a compliant photo can be taken that illustrates the subject (person). It is unlikely-to-zero a compliant album cover will be released that illustrates the subject (album). Its the same principle, but one can happen, the other will not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely that a compliant album cover will illustrate the album? I think you've got that backwards. An album cover will always illustrate the album. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand how/why NFCC is applied. We can use pictures of the album cover on the album page to illustrate the album, because despite being non-free media, they are the only likely possible image available to illustrate the album so fall under fair use. They are not going to re-release the album with a new album cover that satisifies our criteria for being a 'free' picture. With a living person, given the copyright rules on photos of people, there is always a likelihood that a new photo could be taken that can be released under a free licence, so you cant get away with stating that a non-free alternative cant be found. (With some exceptions, do we have a free picture of the leader of NK yet? -edit- Apparently we use a photorealistic sketch, ha.) Which is why with dead people we can often use non-free media. Its unlikely we will get a free replacement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless an album is pulled from circulation and hence no longer exists in public view, a picture of the album is not needed for identification purposes. The only reasonable justification for an album illustration is if (1) there has been notable commentary about the cover (as with, for example, the Sgt. Pepper cover); or (2) the album is no longer available, i.e. "dead". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes? Feel free to go nominate album covers from their respective articles if you feel the community considers that interpretation valid. Good luck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm more of an inclusionist, so I would take the opposite argument: That the notion that identifying albums is somehow much more important than identifying people, makes no logical sense. Maybe this is why some other Wikipedia sites don't allow fair use at all. Then there's no argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I lean towards making it possible to use more images, even if it's at the expense of some disputes over NFCC. I'd love for it to be easier to use non-free pics of living people when it's proven very hard to impossible to find free ones, but not at the expense of losing another category of images (album covers) which it is currently possible to use in most circumstances editors would want to use them (in album articles).

It's very frustrating to be working on a BLP and not to be able to illustrate the person's physical appearance because a hardline-NFCC patroller insists that a free image is technically possible. There are a number of notable people who are either notoriously camera shy or who work overtime to control access to photographs of themselves, and free images just don't exist. I feel ghoulish just waiting for the person to die so I can add a non-free image to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's all about the potential of getting that free image, which is required by the Foundation. They specifically laid out the example of a non-free photograph of a living person of the case we shouldn't allow. Yes, it sucks, but it also prevents a potential slippery slope that if you start letting in edge cases, more and more editors will want to claim this type of exemption. In response to @Baseball Bugs: about when album covers can be used, please see the footnote on WP:NFCI#1 which links to three previous RFCs about this type of use that clearly shows consensus is for this piece of "implicit marketing and branding" , even if the cover is never discussed in text. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That's probably still better than the serious suggestion that a hand-drawn sketch is an appropriate replacement for a photograph of an aircraft... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Masem, it's unclear to me why you say "this is the only place the album is covered" isn't a valid argument. Could you elaborate? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The NFCI#1 provision for covers to identify works like albums is presumed that there is significant discussion (critical discussion, not just rote facts) of the album. This aligns with the album itself being notable and thus allowing for a standalone article where that significant discussion occurs. In this case, the album does not appear to be notable, (not enough to have a standalone), and the "discussion" of it is simply the factual nature it exists - fine to include on the musician's page, but that changes how NFCC applies. Without any significant discussion, the standard provisions for NFCI#1 no longer exist, and now one has to have a more concrete reason to include the cover image for the album in this case. I don't know immediately of any existing cases where this has occurred, but I recognize that there is a possibility for it (eg maybe the person was also a painter and painted the cover image themselves and shows an example of their work?) I don't think that exists in this case. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And that takes us back to the point that nearly all LP or single covers in the articles about the records are merely decorations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with you, but that's why its important to recognize that across 3 RFCs, consensus has claims this is not the case. (I will also note that the Foundation does actually suggest its okay for illustrating culturally-significant works). I'd love to say "nope, not usable" but that would be removing content against strong consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Then what's so special about this one that it needs to be deleted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, as explained previously, the copyrighted image is in the biography of the musical artist, rather than in a freestanding article about the album itself (which does not appear to be notable). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If album covers are copyrighted, then why are they being used for decorations all over the place? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You can call them "decorations" all you want, but policy and long-standing consensus allow for the use of low resolution images of album covers, book covers and movie posters in articles about notable albums, books and movies. "Illustrations" is a better word, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Because, as mentioned, it is (entirely reasonable) consensus that using the image of an album cover, book cover, or film poster to illustrate the article on the album, book, or film is a proper use of fair use as it enhances the encylopedic value of the article and adds to the knowledge of the reader, as the image is both in context and provides context, while a random "this is an album this artist produced" image does not. (tldr: Bugs, this isn't the rabbit-hole to die in.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreeing here that this idea that we allow articles on albums, books, people (sometimes) to have non-free pictures of the topic of the article and generally not elsewhere unless discussed in reasonable detail in the text of the article. This is the compromise we've reached. I personally think that compromise is too strict and hurts the encyclopedia a bit (e.g. "decorative" things like album covers in a musician's article can be informative about the nature of the time period, what "vibe" the musician is trying to project, etc.). But it is largely where we are. And sometimes it's worth it to have fairly bright lines. That said, once contested, FFD is probably the right venue. It is 99% likely to get removed from the article. Suggest closing this discussion and letting the FFD proceed. Hobit (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If you can find sources that justify the (second) use of an album cover in a musican's article that discuss in some depth how the cover reflects the musician's style at that point, that's fine that is greatly enhanced with the illustration present, that's great - that's a usable case. But you have to have sourced discussion, not just because you feel it is important. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I entirely agree that's how we do things. I just don't personally think it's the right thing to do. But it is our standard procedure. Still worth discussion at FFD IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

A few points that have been lost as this discussion has gone offtrack in various ways:

1. Walter Görlitz has claimed that the use rationale for the image at issue "has not been contested". That statement is plainly false. Both Jo-Jo Eumerus and Marchjuly, in response to Walter's initial post on my talk page, explained why the use rationale was invalid. And I agreed with them. Walter then posted "according to you, the FUR is invalid".[223] It's damned hard to take Walter's contrary argument here as good faith, since he'd said precisely the opposite a short time before.
2. It is evident that the use in the bio does not have a valid, article-specific use rationale. Walter simply took the use rationale for the individual album article and changed the article involved to the musician bio, even though it was evident that use in the bio was not within the scope of that use rationale. WP:NFCCE calls for (not simply allows, but calls for) summary removal of the nonfree image whenever there is no valid, article-specific use rationale. Walter's position that prior discussion is required is contrary to well-established, explicit policy.
3. See the discussion at User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz/Archive_2#April_2012, where it was determined that removal of an album cover in parallel circumstances was exempt from 3RR limits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The key point and still true today is that the NFC use has to be obviously wrong. If the image lacked mention of the article name, for example, that's obviously wrong and removal would be exempt from 3RR. This is not the case here - it is a disputed use and rationale, but it is not "obvious". No one would be allowed to edit war to remove or keep it. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, the 2012 "parallel" that is being cited is a false equivalency. Those images had no FUR, which is a specific procedural issue that cannot be debated. The degree to which an album cover "makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the [artist's] article," on the other hand, is inherently abstract and subjective, and that's literally why edit warring policy refers users to FFD. It's not a convincing FUR, but the fact that it could be argued invalidates the claim that it's an objectively-unquestionable violation. This is no different from anything else. If there's a dispute, proceed to the appropriate forum, and seek a consensus to resolve the dispute. It's as simple as that. Don't edit war and then run to ANI if you're not even going to attempt to approach the issue in an appropriate manner. Swarm ♠ 20:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't piss in my tent and tell me it's raining, Swarm.It's false, and you know perfectly well it's false, to accuse me of "not even going to attempt to approach the issue in an appropriate manner" and then "run to ANI". At least you should. My initial post here pointed to the discussion on my talk page where three editors, myself explained why the use was improper and the use rationale was invalid. Walter did not respond on the substantive issues, and after waiting more than a day, I implemented the consensus on my talk page. Being an admin does not entitle you to fabricate facts to denigrate an editor you disagree with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That is a...bizarre response, to say the least. Wolfowitz, regarding the actual dispute, I've already pointed out that I agree with you. So I'm not sure what you think I'm fabricating due to some sort of disagreement. You were involved in an edit war, and you came to ANI seeking one-sided enforcement against your opponent, implying that you were "in the right". All we've done is refer you to the relevant policy (which happens to not support the one-sided admin intervention you're seeking), and point you to the correct venue to hash out your dispute. You're the one who ignored the input you've received, chose to continue to argue, and even falsely cited a "parallel" situation from 2012 that both me and Masem took the time to examine and explain to you why it's not the same. If your goal was to "avoid timesinks", you've failed spectacularly. Here we are, two days later, with a ridiculously bloated ANI thread that is achieving nothing, and you yourself so worked up that you're lashing out at some random replying admin for "[fabricating] facts to denigrate an editor you disagree with". Don't you think that's a little irrational? Maybe you feel "treated like dirt" by administrators because you interpret genuinely neutral disagreement from random strangers on the internet as some sort of malicious personal slight? You need to get over this, the policy does not support the action you're requesting, this is not a personal issue against you, I don't even know you! Swarm ♠ 21:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you need to get over yourself and your little tin sherriff's admin badge. You're ignoring the fact that the issue was discussed on my talk page (the venue chosen by Walter), consensus was reached against his position, a consensus that line up with clear language on an NFC policy/guideline page and the instructions for the template involved, and that Walter set off an edit war by insisting, in effect, "Just because you have consensus to remove the image doesn't allow you to remove the image". And I didn't "run to ANI", as you so plainly misstate simple facts; I waited until consensus was established and Walter's refusal to abide by it was evident. It's not raining. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, I haven't commented in an administrative capacity at all, so the implication that I'm waving the mop around or something kind of falls flat. It's telling that you would personally attack someone for being an administrator, even when they're not acting in an administrative capacity and never even hinted at being an administrator. Secondly, I think if your position was as strong as you think it is, we'd be discussing sanctions, and not humoring your personal attacks and hyperbolic idioms. Look, it's obvious to all from your section header and original post that you framed this as a copyright issue. You didn't get the reaction you wanted, so now that we've discussed copyright policy, to death, and established that it's not a copyright issue, you're saying he edit-warred against a local consensus on your talk page. In other words, you're reporting run-of-the-mill edit warring that literally is happening at any given time? Seems disingenuous, as you chose to bring it here and not the edit warring noticeboard (if your original post was accurate, it would have been a mere matter of procedure to get WG blocked). That makes it look like you either twisted the situation in your original post to make it sound worse than it was, or you're twisting it now because your original complaint failed to get the desired reaction. Regardless, it's too little, too late. You can't just change your narrative after a report at AN/I gets rejected, particularly after degenerating into vicious personal attacks. You're just discrediting yourself in a forum that gets a lot of attention. Poor show. Are you even reading this thread? Tell me, is it going anywhere? And lastly, even ignoring everything else, and only focusing on the specific behavioral complaint in your previous comment: getting some editors to agree with you on your talk page and then going straight to AN/I isn't dispute resolution. As you should know, and has already been explained here, when you run into disputes that aren't resolvable locally, you proceed to a formal venue to resolve the dispute. In this case, you didn't do so. You went to AN/I seeking an editing restriction. So, I'm sorry you're so personally offended by my saying so, but that is indeed what I'm referring to when I say you "ran to AN/I". It appears that, upon getting into a lame edit war, your first step was to report them to admins. Not a good look. Swarm ♠ 05:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You really need to get over yourself and the negligible competence you're demonstrating here; your little tin badge doesn't entitle you to create "alternative facts" and act on them. We begin with a long, long, long-settled issue: nonfree album covers can't be used as general illustrations in artist biographies. This was established by multiple RFCs, written into NFC guidelines, reconfirmed by extensive discussions, written into the instructions for the specific template Walter invoked, and, in this specific case confirmed by discussion and the venue Walter chose for discussion. That's not merely a "local consensus", as you pretend, and that's not a position a reasonable, competent editor would take. Your comments also show that you do not understand the difference between copyright policy (making sure Wikipedia follows governing law) and nonfree content policy (implementing the WMF's commitment towards minimizing the use of nonfree content here, even when the use may be allowed under copyright law. This is a basic error that shows how unreliable your opinions are. And nobody who's familiar with my opinions would be surprised to learn that I believe that achieving admin status here is deserving of any particular respect, but saying that is hardly a "vicious personal attack" against admins. For you to say that is dishonest. And it's still not raining. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(←) There's the thing, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. If you simply believed that being an admin does not make you deserving of respect by default, as you suggest, then that would be perfectly fine. But that's not what you said. You said that I need to get over the ego I have from being an administrator. It's right there. You said I have a "little tin badge", multiple times, even though being an admin had absolutely nothing to do with anything I was saying, or how I said it. Your approach that I'm disagreeing with you because I have some sort of ego that's too big because I'm an administrator is quite literally an ad hominem personal attack. You're attacking an administrator in a report you made to administrators. You're reducing my policy-based input to my administrator permission, just because I disagreed with your request for policy reasons. You're basically crying "admin abuse!" whilst openly proclaiming a grudge against admins by default in your signature. It's not cute, it's not sympathetic, and it's not credible. The basis of WP:NPA is to not focus on contributors, by attacking my administrative status you're making personal attacks. Your position is simply not credible. You came here citing copyright concerns, got rejected, then cited a specific local consensus, got rejected again, and only then claim that you're enforcing longstanding overarching consensus. It's just not a believable tactic, and even if you took that approach from the start, would not alter the fundamental point that you're not enforcing unambiguous copyright infringement. Your repeated accusations that I'm being dishonest, or that I'm some rogue, unhinged, ego-driven admin who doesn't actually understand policy are all well and good, because we are not governed by the whims of a single admin, but by consensus. And the consensus here clearly doesn't support your request for a sanction against WG, in fact, not a single editor has even seconded your proposal after all this time. If this was about a good faith content dispute, you'd have let this go by now because the consensus here is literally not with you at all and never has been from the start. Swarm ♠ 06:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Swarm and Masem. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was pinged so I guess I might as well respond. I saw the discussion on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz user's talk and have already responded there. I also have commented in the FFD, so I'll try not to repeat everything I wrote there. Basically, the image was being used in a stand-alone article about the album, but that article was subsequently merged into the artist's article as a resulf of an AfD discusison. There was no discussion as to how the merge would affect the non-free use of the file in the AfD, so it appears to have been assumed that the same justification for non-free use would be just as acceptable for the artist's article and the only "change" made to the rationale was to simply change the article name in the rationale.

I think HW's assessment of non-free use in general is pretty good and in this particular case was correct; so, I can also see being bold and removing the file once in the belief that doing so would be uncontentious and save the community some time discussing it by simply letting the file be deleted per WP:F5. Personally, I think it probably would've been better to tag the file with {{rfu}} or {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, or maybe even prod it for deletion instead; however, once it was re-added it probably should have gone to FFD for discussion. I think any of these things would've most likely led to the same result (deletion/removal of the file) and probably prevented this from ending up at ANI.

In general, I think this kind of non-free issue is not uncommon when it comes to merges, so it might be better to provide better guidance about it somewhere in WP:MERGE to make others aware that merges which include the moving of non-free content should consider any possible WP:NFCC issues. Non-free use is and never has been automatic and trying to argue WP:JUSTONE is in some ways more of a problem, in my opinion, than not having any rationale at all because the latter could be just due to a lack of knowledge of NFCCP, whereas the former seems to indicate a clear misunderstanding of the NFCCP. As for the other issue about the list of performers mentioned in the article, I have no particular comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I mean when I write that the FUR "has not been contested". Until a short while ago it stood on the image's page. Any other argument is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

...and at that point, it became contested. WP:LONGTIME isn't an argument to avoid only at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, see WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED as to why it sometimes takes time for someone to notice a problem with the way a non-free file is being used in a particular article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The fair use rationale was in-place, as was the image, so stating that there was no fair use rationale was simply wrong, when what they really meant to say was the fair use rationale doesn't apply.

And, yes LONGTIME is only an argument to avoid in AfDs, as that's what that essay states.

And I'm not is arguing that NOBODYCOMPLAINED (another deletion discussion argument), I'm arguing that the editor who removed the image did do so in the wrong place. If fair use rationales can be ignored by a select group of editors, and they don't even offer a community WP:CONSENSUS for doing so, when a FfD discussion or removal of the FUR is the correct way to address the issue, then Wikipedia is on its way to anarchy. I know we are allowed to WP:IGNORE all rules, but when it becomes disruptive and results in a misplaced ANI discussion, it's rubbish.

And no, when the editor removed an image from an article that had a fair use rationale claiming that there wasn't a fair use rationale, it wasn't contested. It was lunacy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Just becuase the "only an essay" is titled '...to avoid at deletion discussions' does not mean 'only at'. Walter, given that in this one comment alone I'm seeing heavy wikilawyering, thinly veiled accusations of a cabal, and a borderline personal attack on the editor who removed the image, I'm going to be honest with you here and advise considering the First Law of Holes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Walter: Maybe you feel WP:UNCHALLENGED is more appropriate, even though it basically says the same thing as LONGTIME and NOBODYCOMPLAINED? Regardless, when the album article was merged into the artist's article, you made this edit to the file's rationale most likely as part of the post-AfD cleanup. Perhaps, you just assumed that doing so would not be contentious and it wasn't until Hullaballoo Wolfowitz came along. Since he reviews quite a lot of non-free files, I'm assuming he looks at their rationales and assesses their validity, and then boldly removes those which he strongly believes are not NFCCP compliant. Once I again, I think he was correct in doing so in this particular case and I might have done the same thing because, even though I'm sure you made it good faith, your tweak was basically a cosmetic change which did nothing to address the new way in which the file was being used. After that, things sort of spiraled out of control and would've could've should've been avoided if either side an chosen a different tact. It seems from all of the comments made above the the worst that is going to come out of this for either of you is a WP:TROUT; so, my suggestion to both of you would just be to let this go and move on. Perhaps in the future, you can be a little more aware of non-free content usage issues such as this and HW can be a little more aware that choosing CSD, Prod, or FFD can sometimes be a better approach to dealing with NFCCP violations which are not NFCC#10c issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A major part of the problem here is that Walter doesn't understand the difference between the nonfree use rationale and the licensing tag (even though the non-free use rationale has "use rationale" in its title, and the licensing tag is placed under the header "Licensing". And CSD, Prod, and FFD are generally not appropriate venues to discuss most of the violations I remove, because the clear majority of them have been images that are suitable for one article where they have been inserted, but not others. Far too many editors here assume that because an image is acceptable in one article it is suitable for general use. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

FFD is no longer only for discussing the deletion of images; it is now also for discussing removal of non-free images since WP:NFCR was merged into FFD about a year ago, and the name has been changed to "Files for discussion" from "Files for deletion". (Just for reference, WP:PUF was also merged into FFD around the same time.) There is also {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, which is technically a deletion template, but can probably also be used to dispute a particular FUR as well without deleting the file. I think one possible problem with removing non-free files that have only a single use is that the file is now an orphan which results in a de-facto deletion per WP:F5 in five days, unless it is re-added to some article. In some cases this may be an acceptable outcome, and the deleted file can most likely be undeleted at a later date if someone "contests" the F5 deletion; however, if a file with bad rationale or no rationale is removed and then subsequently re-added by someone who believes they have "fixed" the problem, then maybe it's better to discuss things from that point onward instead of engaging in endless reverting. Copyright tags are not FURs as you rightly point out; in fact, most of the non-free license templates say exactly such a thing. Moreover, file's lacking any FUR at all can be tagged for speedy per WP:F6, and those lacking a FUR for some uses can be removed per WP:NFCCE or tagged with {{di-missing some article links}}. In this paricular case, however, the file did have a FUR when you first removed the file; it was (still is) a bad one in my opinion, but it was technically an FUR. So, while being bold and removing it the first time was probably fine, perhaps it would been better to try another approach after it was re-added. FWIW, I completely forgot that I too had removed the file with this edit, and that it was subsequently re-added here. I don't know why, but for some reason I either didn't notice the re-addition, or just assumed good faith and didn't look at it carefully enough. However, if I had decided to pursue the matter further at that point, I probably would've taken the file to FFD instead of removing it again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be really nice if HW understood any of the above and acted accordingly, instead of assuming that whenever he decides that an image is in violation of NFC, that is the end of it, no further discussion is warranted, so the image can be removed, and he is then justified in edit warring if reverted. He's been doing this for a long time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Wolfowitz has been enforcing NFC policy for a "long time", consistently, and his practices have been repeatedly confirmed as consistent with, and supported by, the governing policy and guidelines. You, on the other hand, pushed to include a patent NFC violation just last week at Thomas Hammes. And you knew you were violating policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to show me that trick where you read my mind, it would come in handy sometimes.

In point of fact, I did not (and do not) believe that the image was in violation of policy, but I gave up fighting you because you just keep on edit warring the image out with nasty edit summaries -- typical of your mode of behavior. You've decided that the image is in violation, so you don't have to discuss it, or bring it to FFD, you can just delete it and keep whomping the other guy on the head until they give up. As the discussion here shows (especially your colloquy with Swarm) you are very special, and the rules simply do not apply to you.

In your sig you write that you have been "[t]reated like dirt by many administrators since 2006." Maybe that's true, I don't know -- I can't pretend to be inside your skin and read your mind as you seem to think you can read mine, but what is clearly true is that you treat your fellow editors like dirt all the time, and when you're called on it, you get even nastier, as this very discussion will atest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rather than yammering on and on and on, saying nothing more than WOLFOWITZ BAD WOLFOWITZ BAD WOLFOWITZ BAD BAD BAD, you might deign to explain to us how you can reasonably believe your proposed image use is correct, even though it flies in the face of an essentially unbroken string string of RFCs, MCQ discussions, FFD outcomes, and other talk page discussions. That's much more relevant than ranting about my signature. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

In the famous words of Popeye: "I yam what I yam".

No, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you don't get to all-of-a-sudden seem interested in having a discussion^** after arrogantly and precipitously slamming the door in another editor's face earlier. I think that you need to come to the realization that you are not the be-all and end-all of NFC policing. Once again, this very discussion shows that you aren't, and that your personal absolutist interpretation of that policy is not shared by other very significant editors in the community. Were I you, I would start looking forward to a new way of dealing with other editors in which you treat them as equals, and not as ignorant peons subject to your imperious will.

Now, I've said what I want to say, in as direct a way as I can without -- I hope -- violating NPA, and you've said what you want to say, repeatedly. Is there really any need to continue this colloquy between us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

** Well, not so much a "discussion," as a demand from you: "Explain yourself!". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I am gonna be honest and say I have been wondering how HW's sig is not a violation of WP:POLEMIC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think he changed it to "many administrators" from just plain "administrators" fairly recently.

I dunno if it violates POLEMIC or not, but you gotta admit it's a pretty neat catch-22: if you're an admin, and you complain about it, it just goes to illustrate that he's right! If you don't complain about it, and he isn't forced to change it, he gets to display his sense of being oppressed by "the man" to everyone. Nifty! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Break 3

Regardless of the merits of this individual case, it seems to me that any NFC rationale that is contested in good faith by editors in good standing should result in the image being removed pending discussion and consensus on Talk or an appropriate noticeboard. Edit warring material of questionable copyright status exposes the project to potential legal jeopardy. The onus is surely on the persona sserting the fair use claim, to achieve consensus that it is valid. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy, that sounds great, but the material being discussed here: album covers and book covers, while potentially failing NFC, would never fail American fair use practice, and would be extremely unlikely to subject the WMF to any legal jeopardy. Since their usage is strictly a matter of internal rules, there's no harm in leaving them in place while a discussion goes on. Obvious copyright violations which would never survive fair use are another matter altogether, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...questionable copyright status exposes the project to potential legal jeopardy" - that kind of fear-based buzzphrase is exactly the kind of approach to copyright issues that is unhelpful. The notion that good faith fair use disagreements should default to "remove" short of a formalized "keep" consensus is baseless, IMO. The project has never been harmed over such a dispute, and we don't, and have never needed, to take some sort of chilled approach whenever someone disagrees with a FUR. In fact, the very act of implying that there will be legal consequences is expressly disallowed, in part because it creates a WP:CHILLINGEFFECT that interferes with the fundamental consensus-building process from which this project is governed. That's not how we operate. Unambiguous copyright infringement is obviously banned and we are all mandated to remove such material without prejudice. However, that should not obscure the fact that fair use is allowed, and when fair use is disputed, it should be handled no differently than any other dispute. We do not err on the side of one party in the dispute, in policy or in practice, just because they believe that a FUR is not valid. Period. It's become obvious over the course of this thread that we're not here dealing with a copyright dispute. We're dealing with an out of control editor. They came here seeking one-sided enforcement over a good faith content dispute. When they received a moderate, policy-based response, rather than a sanction against their opponent, they lashed out with personal attacks that would quite simply not be tolerated from someone who is not a power user. This is literally a nonstarter ANI thread that was rejected from the start, and yet is still going because we're having to grapple with the reporter's ego. Swarm ♠ 06:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• What a farrago of nonsense. It's eminently clear you don't understand Wikipedia's nonfree content policy, which provides that advocates of retaining disputed nonfree content "will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria" of WP:NFCC and that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". It is hardly irrational to read that this policy language, particularly the term "convincing", as calling for the result you absurdly call "baseless". Indeed. in one of the first disputes over NFCC I was engaged in, an admin recognized as expert on the policy said "Once he [Wolfowitz] challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd".[224] As Guy noted above, this is the best way to handle these disputes, given the strong policy language requiring consensus support to retain disputed nonfree images/ As for your argument that "the very act of implying that there will be legal consequences is expressly disallowed" is discussion of a policy expressly characterized as a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" is palpably absurd, as is underscored by you failure to cite any policy declaring this wholly nonexistent "disallowance". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Farrago". Whatever else might be said about HW, he's got a great vocab. Still not getting the point, though, I'm afraid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that if an image's rationale is contested and doesn't fail the immediate problematic NFCC ones (like NFCC#2 where a press image is used without discussing the image itself, or a completely missing rationale or license), images should be kept in place while FFD takes place, as it is often necessary to understand the image's use in context of the article to validate the rationale. In that period while it is under FFD, we can call to fair use should a legal question come up as to why it is kept - the whole license and rationale aspect of NFCC is to satisfy the WMF's goal for free content, and does nothing directly towards arguing a fair use defense, through the process of developing those rationales is to help editors to think about image use that better complies with a fair use defense. --Masem (t) 17:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Questions about a new action by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Questions: Is HW targeting me because of my opinions expressed in this discussion? [225]. Why, in the aftermath of this discussion, didn't HW take this to FFD instead of simply deleting it? On what basis did HW reach his unlilateral decision to delete? Did HW actually do any research on the subject matter to determine that the photo was "obviously replaceable", or is he relying solely on his own personal knowledge, or lack thereof? Is HW aware of the extreme rareness of instrument, and does he know whether one actually exists anywhere for a photo to be taken? Is HW using common sense in this action, and is he listening to the voice of the community? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, and you know that's not what happened. You've been sniping at me -- note all the personal innuendos directed at me above -- following NFCC disputes at, as I recall, Gene Kelly and Jane Morgan (actress). I do a lot of NFCC enforcement, 99+% of which is entirely uncontroversial. The removal you're complaining about is an obvious no-brainer, an indisputable violation of NFCC#1. It's obviously replaceable, and you damn well know it. You've made no effort to show that the musical instrument is "extinct" and that no pictures can be taken of one. That preposterous claim is belied by recent Youtube videos of people playing the instrument

Yes, particularly given the massive swath of "no NFC in BLP" edits in their contribution, some which are not proper (eg [226] is a perfectly acceptable use of a non-free image for a BLP as it is the photograph itself that lent towards the subject's notability.) This is unacceptable behavior. --Masem (t) 17:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It is clear from the cited article text that the subject's notability came from the caption, not the picture, and that the essential information is conveyed by test alone. This is a textbook failure of NFCC#8. The argument that "the photograph itself that lent towards the subject's notability" justifies nonfree image use has long been rejected; it was, for example, a standard failed justification for including Playboy centerfolds in Playmate bios. And this is a news agency photo, requiring a particularly compelling justification. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one just found just through a random spot-check [227] where on the image's page, there's a box that says that the image free-replacability was already reviewed and determined non-replacable (due to it being a picture of said BLP in their youth). --Masem (t) 17:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong here. The "review" was more than a decade ago, and rests on an argument that has been solidly rejected over the ensuing time. The claim was that just showing an image of the article subject in his youth justified a nonfree use -- an argument that is clearly incompatible with NFCC requirements, particularly in the bio of a politician/government official whose notability has exactly zero relation to his notability. The dead hand of long-abandoned policy does not limit what we do today. It's astonishing to see an admin making that srgument. And the image has no source information, and has been marked for more than 10 years as lacking a valid use rationale. There is no case whatever for allowing it to remain. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem when one takes a hardline NFC approach is going to end up the same place where BetaCommand did. NFC is an important policy, there are a handful of clear lines where non-free images can be problematic, but many of the cases are borderline in that gray area, that might need just a nudge in improvement. What is very much unreasonable is the process of achieving NFCC image deletion where it is in the grey area (as the case for the two examples I noted) by 1) removing the image from the article 2) anticipating no one will revert that and 3) waiting 7 days for an orphaned NFC deletion. Most of these should be processed through an FFD approach. Not all of them would be kept, but I think your current approach is catching far too much in false positions to not be helpful. --Masem (t) 07:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"And the image ... has been marked for more than 10 years as lacking a valid use rationale." That's not true. The image has had a fair-use rationale since it was uploaded (apparently from Mongolian wiki) to EN-wiki in 2006: [228], and the fair-use rationale was reviewed and confirmed valid by an administrator, Quadell, in 2007: [229], [230]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree this all sounds exactly like Betacommand, and has from the beginning. I'm glad someone else mentioned it before I did. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That in no way reflects NFC policy. WP:NFC specifically authorizes removal of images from articles, and the Betacommand ruling specifically stated that "a non-free image may be removed from a particular page if it does not satisfy the NFCC with respect to its being used on that page." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is freely editable, and there is not one word of policy or guideline that privileges nonfree images from ordinary editing. You don't cite any, because there isn't any. And there is no need to relitigate long-settled issues every time someone wants to violate NFCC standards. Are you seriously arguing that not having a use rationale for 10 years is a borderline case or grey area? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The key word in the NFC language is "should", not "must", which is how I see your justification these actions. The only "must" is that images completely lacking rationales or licenses, or orphaned out, can be semi-speeded removed. But anything away from those, we need to handle with more care. The scenario around Betacommand's first two bans instructs us to avoid being hard-nosed and jerks around NFCC. More specifically, there needs to be a lot more human element involved here. I do not think you're using a bot or anything like that, but the option to simply remove an image that you think is not appropriate, and doing that in an automatic manner (eg you're running these down alphabetically, implying a use of a tool like AWB to at least identify them), that's going to lead to another BetaCommand like situation, which no one wants to see. — Masem 09:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

You know, the fact that the "key word" is "should" is a rather clear indication that the governing policy sanctions the action. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

For example, the image at File:Elbegdorj.JPG (removed in the second diff) clearly has a rationale from ten years ago. It's just not in a templated form, but we do not require rationales to be in a templated form at all. Is it a strong rationale? Not one I'd be proud of, but it is hitting the meat of what NFCC requires, and as such, removing it claiming it an NFC violation is extremely bad form. In the first case, while it may be a press photo, the combination of the photo and caption are the subject of why the person was notabile, this would be a fair allowance in considering NFCC#2. Basically, you cannot just look at a BLP' page and go "nope, no non-free at all", which is what your recent block of contributions, in addition to your statements here, looks like. --Masem (t) 09:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you're just making things up. There is no policy or guideline that in any way says that an editor can't remove a nonfree image from an article where they believe it is improperly used. There is nothing in policy or guidelines which requires any discussion before editing with regard to nonfree images, and certainly nothing that requires going to a formal process like FFD. And you're violating WP:AGF when you accuse me of "just look[ing] at a BLP' page and go[ing] "nope, no non-free at all". That's a falsification. You should know better, you've been here long enough. As I pointed out, just a few weeks ago, my image-related editing was reviewed by multiple admins, who fount it entirely appropriate. You don't get to unilaterally overrule them, or by fiat prohibit an editing practice that's been approved for years. Why don't you honestly review the utter crap complaint from BMK that started this, because it's absolutely clear that the image involved is replaceable, and that the complaint is just a pretext for harassing me. Slog through the ten days of useless discussion at Talk:Jane Morgan (actress) caused by BMK falsely claiming an article subject had died in order to slip an easily replaceable nonfree image into the bio. The whole point of this contretemps is to undermine NFC enforcement, and the governing policy states unequivocally that consensus processes aren't allowed to do that. You really should know better. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, you are making up policies to suit yourself. WP:NFCCE specifically states: "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." You are currently removing images that do have fair use rationales for the articles they are in, and beyond that, you are edit-warring to keep them removed.

In terms of the Betacommand ruling, you conveniently failed to quote the rest of that section, which reads:

7) Images and other media that do not meet the requirements described by the non-free content criteria should be tagged to show how they are lacking and the uploader(s) should be notified. Unless the non-compliance with policy is blatant and cannot be fixed, the uploader or any other interested editor should be provided with a reasonable amount of time (generally seven days under current policy) within which to address the problem with the image. If the discrepancies are not resolved after a suitable time period the media may be deleted. Similarly, a non-free image may be removed from a particular page if it does not satisfy the NFCC with respect to its being used on that page. [231]. In other words, like everyone else, if an image has a fair-use rationale for the page it is used on, and you don't like it, you need to follow procedures just like everyone else, such as tagging, notifying the uploader, and filing at WP:FFD. If you continue making unilateral removals of images that have fair use rationales, I think this is going to end up at ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted all three of those removals (pointed out by BMK and Masem), since all three have fair-use rationales for the particular article. Should a topic-ban on [unilaterally] removing images from articles be proposed? Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• The extreme WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior HW is displaying in this overall thread (which started innocuously enough), even towards people and administrators who agree with him but want him to follow appropriate protocols/procedures, is frankly shocking, and deserving of a boomerang. I will close by stating that neither usertalk nor unilateral removal are the place/way to determine article-content or image-use consensus, and that WP:FFD (or at the very least article talk as a first step) is the place to determine image-use consensus. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The accusations here are incoherent. We have one claim that HW's edit is retributive against BMK, and a second claim that he's violating .. some other policy by making multiple similar edits on entirely different pages (that BMK hasn't edited). The content dispute on whether/when it is fair use to include images should be handled somewhere other than ANI. I would encourage everyone to let this thread die and engage in civil discussion of the content issues in other forums. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, if you don't know what you are talking about and aren't familiar with the policies and procedures involved, then it's best not to comment; it just creates clutter and distraction. HW is making unilateral decisions in violation of established procedure and existing and posted fair-use rationales. Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've read the whole damn thread, I'm familiar with copyright law, and I know most of the Wikipedia policies. If you want a trial, file an ARBCOM case. I don't see either disruptions or WP:HOUNDING from HW here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you "don't see either disruptions or WP:HOUNDING from HW here", that's fine, just say so. Other, more experienced, editors (including several admins) see considerable problems in both HW's behavior on this thread and in his ensuing or related edits. When anyone files at ANI, their behavior is scrutinized as well. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously I have a dog in this race, but I do think it's time that admins consider that HW's absolutist position regarding NFC, his unwillingness to follow the common interpretation of the way to go about removing a potential NFC violation when it's disputed, and his willingness to edit war as if his removal was one of the set immunities from WP:EW... well, shouldn't he be blocked for this behavior? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not. Don't pretend your "common interpretation" represents anything like consensus. Just five weeks ago, the exact issue was raised on this board, and the UNANIMOUS conclusion was that "Multiple admins have looked at this and found nothing actionable about the respondent's [Wolfowitz's] activities. Admin Black Kite said "I've looked through Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's non-free image editing and every single one that I've looked at so far is completely in line with our non-free image policy". Admin Boing! said Zebedee added that "I've examined a few recent removals of non-free images from articles, and all appeared to be in line with policy to me too".[232] I've been doing NFCC enforcement in the same way for nearly a decade, and my approach has been consistently upheld -- I don't think that even a dozen cases, out of thousands and thousands, have been genuinely controversial. BMK is not really interested in complying with NFCC policy -- he's said as much at Talk:Jane Morgan, where we suffered through 10 days of pointless discussion because BMK insisted that use of a nonfree image of a living person was justified by WP:IAR. His goal is to keep NFCC from being effectively enforced by bogging policy-compliant editors down in time-wasting discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If by "unanimous" you mean by two of the only three people who replied to the thread before it was closed one hour after it was opened, then yes it was "unanimous" [233]. It was hardly an exhaustive review, and failed/closed because the OP was apparently deemed problematic (and also didn't provide any diffs). Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If he persists, yes, blocked or topic banned. Softlavender (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternately, I suppose, the matter could be taken to ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No, not before all other options/efforts at dispute resolution were exhausted. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• NFC *is* one of the hardline rules we are required to follow. With the possible exception of the photo (where the photo is the story - while the caption is the important bit, in context the photo provides the emotional impact) which is at least arguable either way, HW is entirely correct on the others. NFC is not a 'leave it and argue about it' situation. Its 'remove it and argue about it until consensus is that it satisfies our non-free criteria and then it can be replaced'. As with any other situation that has potential legal implications. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Only in death: I guess you didn't read any of this thread? I'm not sure where exactly you're getting the notion of "remove it until consensus is otherwise", to the degree that you'd be willing to come onto ANI and deign to declare to everyone that this is standard operating procedure, as if it were a fact, but that's actually not reflected anywhere in policy. That's reflected only in irrational copyright paranoia, and it's actually very unhelpful to tell people that "legal considerations" mandate a chilling effect. Especially since you portrayed your misguided opinion as a fact. I respected you as an editor, but you seriously discredited yourself. Sorry, but you're in the wrong here, and it's not even something that's debatable. The vague and illusive red herring that is the phrase "legal considerations" is not supposed to chill standard procedure, and that is literally why any users who attempt to assert legal consequences are prohibited from editing, even when a direct, sincere and credible legal threat is made. Disputes are not weighted over "legal considerations". We do not bend or break over "legal considerations". We do not supplant consensus in favor of "legal considerations". I'm not aware of any instance in which this has happened, but if consensus disagrees with the law, the Foundation overrules it. The community is not the Foundation's legal defense team. We're expected to abide by overarching consensus, with the only other boundaries being those set by the Foundation due to legal considerations. @Only in death: you're not citing limits imposed by your higher-ups. You're citing nonexistent limits brought about by a non-understanding of copyright law and WMF policy. Good faith assistance is appreciated, but misinformed lecturing at ANI is roundly frowned upon. Swarm ♠ 10:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NFCC and specifically WP:NFCCE Go read it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, go read it: WP:NFCCE specifically states: "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." All of the images we've been discussing that HW is unilaterally removing have fair-use rationales for the articles he is removing them from. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The key point of emphasis in NFCCE is not only that a file have a non-free use rationale, but that it have a valid non-free use rationale. If HW is removing a non-free file because he believes that its non-free use rationale is not valid per WP:JUSTONE, then that seems to be permissible. If nobody re-adds the file, then the removal is not contentious. Many files have bogus/questionable non-free use rationales, and starting an FFD discussion for each and everyone of these files seems unnecessary. (FWIW, I've seen people add rationales for templates, drafts, userpages, etc.) HW does do lots of non-free content checking, and I'm assuming he's evaluating these files based upon his experience and on previously established consensus; therefore, being bold in such a way does not seem problematic. Problems happen, however, when files are re-removed after being re-added; at that point, I think it would be better to (1) prod the file for deletion (if it only has one use); (2) tag the file with a speedy tag such as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} (if it has more than one use and fails NFCC#8 for one of those uses) or {{rfu}} (if it fails NFCC#1); or (3) just go straight to FFD. The file was re-added because someone disagreed with its removal (even if they don't leave an edit sum explaining why), so at that point it's probably better, at least in my opinion, to treat it like a de-prod and explore other options to deletion by F5 by getting more feedback to discuss the validity of the rationale and avoid any possible edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Being WP:BOLD is fine. What is not fine is edit warring when the bold edit is disputed, instead of taking it to WP:FFD. Also, while HW does do a great deal of NFC work, there have been enough examples of his missing the boat that his judgment alone is not sufficient justification for removals. He needs to back off a little, and leave open the possibility of his being wrong, something that he does not seem to admit as conceivable. In my view, the problems here do not lie in the policy, but in HW's application of it, and in the attitude which accompanies those actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Break 5/closure

Frankly, I'm shocked that this is still going on. We're literally dealing with a report that was discredited from the start, and that no admin is taking seriously at the moment. This is not a criticism, but an observation. And yet, 2.5 weeks later, in a manner I've never seen here, here we are, still pettily discussing this non-issue, disagreeing after everything has been discussed to death. It's clear by now that no admin feels that this is actionable, and no new policy argument mandating renewed discussion has been/is being made. After 2 1/2 weeks it seems evident that no admin is taking this as a serious report in need of action, and in the interest of WP:NVC, I'm closing this to avoid any further continued timesinks, which was cited as the reason for the original report itself. I recognize that the reporter feels very strongly about this situation, and that they have personally attacked me for having an unreasonable ego as an administrator, and as such I will point out that this is not an admin supervote they're required to accept. This is simply a judgment call that it appears obvious that no other administrator, nor the community, will take preventative measures. If anyone wishes to escalate the issue even further, you may make a case to dispute this close itself. Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for details. Any questions, comments, or concerns may be addressed to my talk page. Swarm ♠ 10:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that I have reopened this discussion per a request on my talk page. I still think this needs to be closed soon if nothing comes of it. Swarm ♠ 16:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Totally agree with you. This isn't the first time HW has had problems in this area apparently but there are also apparently some at least potential ambiguities regarding exactly how to apply NFC which lead me to think that maybe ANI isn't the best place to resolve this. That is basically why I suggested ArbCom above. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• John Carter, ArbCom would NOT take this case because other forms of resolution have not been attempted, much less exhausted. The matter has to be discussed extensively on ANI or AN first. Closing this thread before HW's behavior is thoroughly discussed and hopefully resolved would mean no resolution at all, and no chance of an ArbCom case. This thread is the closest we are going to get to resolving HW's behavior short of starting a whole new thread with the same discussion all over again. ArbCom won't take it if we don't exhaust the ANI/AN options. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it's not going to get resolved if editors keep expressing their concerns about HW's behavior, and HW keeps aggressively blowing them off without taking their concerns into consideration. That leaves as the only available options either a block from an admin to encourage HW to rethink his way of working -- and as Swarm points out, admins aren't exactly jumping to wield the banhammer -- or a topic ban imposed by the editors here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, anyone is free to propose either one (or both, under separate subheaders) of those, and see what the consensus is. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• As you know perfectly well, action has been proposed and soundly and repeatedly rejected. The most recent example, with multiple admins, weighing in, is plainly cited above. Repeating the closer's language,"Multiple admins have looked at this and found nothing actionable about the respondent's [Wolfowitz's] activities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• That was misleading, inaccurate, and premature close, made only one hour after that ANI was opened (because the filer was problematic and had provided no diffs); only two of the only three people who replied to the thread opined on its merits: [234]. This thread is a new discussion, with a lot more input, and actual evidence. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note also that just this morning, Softlavender removed a free image from Bazooka (instrument), substituting a nonfree version that had previously been used, citing her personal policy (argued above) that nonfree images cannot be removed without FFD deletion -- even when comparable free images are available. No honest, competent editor would take such a position, and it merits a significant sanction. It was deliberate disruption. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh good grief, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, your own highly misleading edit summary read "obvious NFCC#1 violation; Undid revision 815208899 by Just plain Bill" [235], not "replaced non-free image with free image", as it should have been, so your edit summary was inaccurate and misleading. As you had been blatantly edit-warring on that article and your edit summary implied that this was merely yet another of your unilateral image removals without replacement, I reverted you without checking the edit, and gave you an EW notice on your talkpage. Please stop with the misleading edit summaries and the edit warring. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think the edit sum left by HW was blatantly misleading especially if one moves beyond the edit sum and actually looks at the content of the edit. While the edit sum could've been worded a bit differently, it seems clear as to what was being done. The previous edit sum left by Just plain Bill was "If you have a free replacement image of the bazooka in the hands of its inventor, then offer it.", so that's exactly what HW did in his edit. Moreover, the article is about the instrument and while having a image of Burns holding the instrument is nice, a non-free one of him holding the instrument is not really needed per WP:NFCC#1 Any freely licensed equivalent image of the instrument itself could be used instead for primary identification purposes, so the non-free should've been removed or tagged (in my opinion) with {{rfu}} even if HW (actually it might have been We hope) did not take the time to try and find another image of Burns and a bazooka. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• You need to make a better excuse for why you are replacing free images with non-free ones in violation of policy than that Softlavender. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect to Softlavender, so far as I can see there are at least two individuals who are being criticized here, Walter Gorlitz and HW, one for adding problematic images, another for removing them. ArbCom has in the past shown a willingness to take on more complicated disputes such as this one. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Since I've been very critical of HW in this thread, I think it's only fair to thank him for finding a free image to replace the non-free one I put in Bazooka (instrument). I hope that it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway), that had I found that or any other free image -- which I didn't, after a diligent search -- I would have used it instead of the non-free image. The image that HW provided is very much the equivalent of the non-free one, and the quality of the article did not suffer from the change. Thank you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever your motives for this post may have been, it's generally inaccurate. I did not upload the image; User:We hope found and uploaded it, and deserves the credit. His long history of valuable contributions should demonstrate to editors like you the breadth and depth of free imagery available. I did, however, point out, and you pointedly ignored, that a free video including the inventor demonstrating his invention, the article subject, was already linked within the article. I don't view as credible, I don't think any reasonable person can view as credible, a claim of a "diligent" search that doesn't even bother to check the (short) list of resources provided in the (short) article. Similarly, your claim that the instrument was now rare to the point of unfindability was belied by the fact that multiple examples were offered for sale on Ebay and multiple contemporary videos of the instrument being played have been posted to YouTube. The bottom line, which you haven't been willing to accept, is that not being able to find a free image of something or someone on the Internet Right Now is not a valid justification for adding a nonfree image to Wikipedia. That's both consensus here and WMF policy, and you have no business agitating to undermine it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

My motive was ... (wait for it) ... to thank you for finding and inserting the image. (Imagine that!) Your suspicions about my motives are, unfortunately, part-and-parcel of the attitude you carry with you when doing your NFC work: all parties (except yourself) are guilty until proven innocent. In any event, thanks for the information, if not for your errant interpretation of policy.

@We hope: Thanks you for finding and inserting the free image. Perhaps you can tell me on my talk page how you got to it, in case your methodology might come in handy in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay...wow...the fact that HW decided to rant and make massive assumptions of bad faith in response to a thank-you note says it all, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I guess I am known for utilizing sarcasm at times, and I assume that he thought I was being sarcastic, which I wasn't. I thought he had found the picture (which I would have used if I had found it in the first place) and made the change, and I wanted to thank him for doing that, instead of his continuing to edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is directed that: whenever one of his NFC removals is disputed, if he continues to believe that the image in question does not meet the NFCC policy, he must bring the image to WP:Files for discussion for discussion by the community. This requirement is void if he replaces the non-free image with an appropriate substantially equivalent free image, except that if the appropriateness equivalence of that image is disputed, both questions (the putative NFCC violation of the initial image, and the appropriateness equivalence of the replacement free image) must be resolved at FFD.

• Support as proposer - I don't think an attention-getting block would work with this editor, and I don't believe that a general topic ban from NFC work would benefit the project, as HW's work in that area is generally very good, so I think this very specific proposal is the best possible solution to put this situation to rest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment-All the image has to do is be freely in the public domain. It does NOT have to be equivalent to the non-free image. The rules are that if there is a PD image, no matter how small or poor the quality, if it gets uploaded and can be recognized as PD, that's it for the non-free image. We hope (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Your point is well taken, although that part of the policy is rather ridiculous. I've changed the language to remove "equivalence". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I know not everyone agrees about this, but that's the way it's written, so that's how it would play out. We hope (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I understand, that's why I changed the wording. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support as the very least of the restrictions that should be applied here at this time. I would actually prefer a proposal that he is banned from ever unilaterally removing images that already have a fair-use rationale for that article. Softlavender (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Let's look back on the Jane Morgan discussion earlier this year re: free vs non-free and ping User:Masem. We hope (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest this as being 1RR in terms of NFCC image removals. Sometimes going to FFD is not always necessary. For example the bazooka instrument one feels like a case that if there was a remove-revert cycle, the discovery of a free image probably would have come up in talk page discussion (eg where editors interested in the instrument would be in better position to find a free replacement than the "regulars" at FFD). FFD can still be used, but key is that post 1RR, HW should open some discussion of why they think the image should go. I would like to consider that this 1RR can be exempted for "obvious" NFC failures, but I fear we don't have a good objective definition of what is an "obvious failure" to include this yet. We're trying to avoid a repeat of hard-handed NFC enforcement per how the community dealt with BetaCommand and I think in this specific case, for HW, this is one way to do it. --Masem (t) 20:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Masem: I would have no objection if you (or anyone else) want to start a proposal framing it that way. If you did, I would withdraw this proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Un-necessary and counter to written policy. If anything a 1rr restriction needs to be placed on editors reinserting non-free images. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please cite the "written policy" that this community-suggested editing restriction is counter to. Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Generally support this idea. NFCC is not BLP. There isn't even remotely the same "prevention of harm" rationale that is used in BLP cases to allow aggressive removal of suspect content. The truth of the matter is the NFCC goes light-years beyond the minimum legal requirements for fair use, let alone the minimum requirements to prevent causing damage to copyright holders. Except in the case of blatant copyright infringement, aggressive policing of fair use files can be just as much edit warring as anything else. We need less moral panic and "omgrightnow"ism surrounding nonfree files. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, pretty much for the same reasons as Mendaliv. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• You know, for all the invective here, there's been absolutely no evidence that my image removal has been significantly inaccurate. Nobody has disputed that point with a shred of evidence. The preferred outcome of some folks here is that I should be punished for being fast, accurate, and policy-compliant. Punishment without evidence may be the Trumpian way, but it's not the Wikipedian way. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's possible to be 100% accurate and within policy and yet still be entirely disruptive in the process. When you're basically arguing your defense on the basis of the ends justify the means, it's time to stop and ask yourself some pointed questions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - File deletionism is one of the most serious problems at En-WP, it puts off new editors, and it only takes a couple people of the Betacommand ilk to cause massive damage to the project with their Vogonesque obedience to their own interpretation of Non Free File rules. American Fair Use law should be used to its fullest. Carrite (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's a nonstarter. The WMF has declared we must follow stricter standards that American fair use law. We're sharecropping on their farm, and can't defy their rules. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We're not here to follow the WMF's decrees, we are an autonomous community; WMF is the legal entity which operates the servers. On top of that, you are misrepresenting the WMF position, even if that was relevant, which it is not. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you're plainly wrong. The terms of use expressly commit every editor to complying with a set of WMF policies, and the WMF's licensing policy, which includes the limits on fair use files, is included on the list of those policies. Read them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Discussion is going to be needed in the future, because HW's comments here indicate he will not self-police. Grandpallama (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• You may possibly be right, but were the sanction to pass, we owe it to HW -- given his history of quality work (with exceptions) -- to see if he will comply with it willingly. I'm hoping that he would do so, and further reports at AN/I would therefore not be necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's awfully generous on your part. I would say, given HW's history, his quality work is pretty well balanced by years of being incredibly difficult, to the degree that many users feel he has exhausted the goodwill reserves that should otherwise be shown toward him, and I have never seen him just let things go. Grandpallama (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• There's that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, of course. For all the evidence-free invective throw around here, a few points should be emphasized again. I have been active in reviewing nonfree file use since I began editing a decade ago. This year alone, I have reviewed well over 6000 uses, individually, and removed more than 3000 of them. No more than as dozen of these removals -- not file deletions, mind you, because many of these removals involve files with legitimate uses in other articles -- no more than a dozen have been seriously controversial, and for the very few of those that have gone to formal dispute resolution, my position has been sustained -- often unanimously, in terms of outsiders to the immediate dispute.
  

We aren't talking about well-disputed uses. We're talking about well-settled matters. Ninety percent of my removals fall into three categories, where consensus-established guidelines and policies are clear: Nonfree images of living persons, nonfree images of a subject's work in their biography (album covers, book jackets, movies posters, etc), and images used without article-specific use rationales. Here, the stsndards are quite clear -- and in the very small number of cases where an exception may apply, policy explicitly places the burden of proof on the editor(s) supporting inclusion.

My editing practices have been reviewed repeatedly and consistently found proper. Just last month, the conclusion was Multiple admins have looked at this and found nothing actionable about the respondent's [Wolfowitz's] activities (cited above). Admin Black Kite said I've looked through Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's non-free image editing and every single one that I've looked at so far is completely in line with our non-free image policy. Admin Boing! said Zebedee added that I've examined a few recent removals of non-free images from articles, and all appeared to be in line with policy to me too. In terms of governing policy, nothing has changed. This is just an effort to undermine the WMF's nonfree content policyby punishing an editor for enforcing it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I would be amenable to an even more severe restriction on Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, topic banning him from dealing with files at all. Get thee to Commons. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Legitimate gripes about HW's style notwithstanding, he is correct per WMF policy. A disputed non-free image should never be reinserted until it's been independently reviewed, nless there is a broad agreement that a specific class of image (low res version of album cover art on album articles, for example) is appropriate. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • And yet, as I mentioned above, it's that style that is the problem here. If he's 100% correct and policy-compliant but is so abrasive in that correctness that other editors would rather not cross his path, then we need to ask if it's better to ignore the cost because "the results are perfect" or to attempt to moderate the disruptiveness and avoid potentially driving editors away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This notion that an image must be removed over any disputed FUR by default was strongly rejected both as a matter of opinion and a matter of fact above. What you're saying quite simply isn't true, and rather than respond above, you're simply repeating the same misinformation further down the thread. It's not surprising when an established editor is over-reactionary in their approach to copyright, but it is disappointing to see one repeat misinformation after being corrected. Swarm ♠ 17:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Feel free to ask for a change in the policy wording, but until then as it is currently written if there is not a valid FUR non-free media is removed and stays removed until either valid one is provided or consensus is that the existing FUR is acceptable. Do not continue to mis-represent this policy as saying something else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2017

• The idea that local consensus can somehow overrule copyright law and foundation copyright policy is quaint, but unpersuasive. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Guy: There is absolutely no concern about copyright law, since American fair use protocol covers much, much more than NFC allows; and if you review the above discussion, the question is not whether local consensus "overrules" WMF policy, but how that policy is to be correctly interpreted. To frame the dispute in the way you just did is, frankly, entirely inaccurate and misleading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

So you say. Are you willing to provide the Foundation with your personal details and stand guarantor for any potential legal liabilities?Taking into account the re-usability of Wikipedia, our approach must be conservative, and it is obvious that any fair use rationale disputed in good faith must result in the removal of the image pending independent review. Obviously we have already arrived at broad classes where fair use is established, so the independent review is already done - album art on album articles, for example. But the WP:DEADLINE allows for removal pending review where this is not already in place. Guy (Help!) 01:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy, there's no need for me to stand surety, the WMF's Legal Department certainly knows all of the above to be true, since being conversant with intellectual property law is their stock-in-trade. It's really only some Wikipedia editors who don't understand the law, fair use practice, or the purpose (and proper implementation) of the policy.

Besides, let's be clear. Please re-read the proposal. It calls for no change in policy, it simply directs HW to follow standard Wikipedia procedures and get a consensus for a disputed edit. It's a bhavioral sanction, not an attempt to re-work policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It's clear that policy supports the results of HW's editing here. So do our terms of use and the determination by the WMF to enforce a stricter standard than just U.S. copyright law. All of the rest of the stuff are the result of personal dissatisfaction with HW's style. If we follow the dictum "focus on the edits, not the editor", the answer is obvious. This thread should be shut down without any action. David in DC (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, I'm sorry, that's incorrect, it's far from "clear", and saying that it is doesn't make it so. You could profitably review the entire discussion above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• So, as I mentioned above, the ends justify the means? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's a straw man argument. Masem claimed my approach turned up too many false positives; I responded that there was no evidence of this, and that in fact no one had found any clearly erroneous removals. Your argument is with a position no one has advanced, and you're ducking the actual issue involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, that turns out not to be the case. The only thing being "ducked" is that this proposal suggests a sanction designed to deal with your behavior, and is not in any way focused on either changing policy, or the behavior of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per David in DC and Only in death. We don't sanction people for following policy correctly (at least we didn't last time I looked). This is ludicrous, but it's unfortunately typical of the attitudes of even some experienced editors to NFCC, which they seem to believe is subordinate to WP:ILIKEIT, when in reality it's one of the Five Pillars. The idea that HW be "banned from ever unilaterally removing images that already have a fair-use rationale for that article" is one of the most insane things I've ever heard. Anyone can add a FUR to an image; whether it's a valid FUR is a completely different thing. Anyone who patrols NFCC does this sort of thing all of the time, and they can generally be trusted to distinguish a valid use from an invalid one. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• You should take another look at the proposal, because it doesn't say anything remotely equivalent to banning HW "from ever unilaterally removing images that already have a fair-use rationale for that article". What it actually says is if he removes an image with an FUR, and the removal is disputed, he needs to resolve the dispute instead of digging in and edit warring.
  One thing that's often misunderstood is that a removal of a non-free image with a FUR is not a copyright issue: the fact that it's been uploaded as a non-free image and that a FUR has been provided means that it is conceded by the uploader that the images is probably copyrighted and is therefore non-free. So there is absolutely no legal consequence to keeping the picture while a discussion goes on, as the only thing that is potentially being violated is our own internal NFC policy, and no law whatsoever. Like all policies (even BLP), it is subject to interpretation, and the community is the final arbiter of what interpretation is correct. Unlike BLP, removing an image because of a claimed NFC violation is not immune from the edit-warring policy. So, essentially, the proposal directs HW to follow policy that he's been deliberately ignoring.
  This is not, therefore, a conflict between NFC and ILIKEIT, it's a conflict between policy and one editor's refusal to follow it correctly. It would be nice if more editors, and especially more administrators, understood the policy correctly and didn't misstate it with such definitiveness. Maybe WMF legal should run a workshop for admins to explain the correlations and differences between American copyright law, American fair use protocols (which are primarily defined in legal precedents rather than in statutes), and Wikipedia's own NFC policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• You appear to have the same problem softlavender does in that you think any FUR is acceptable. It has to be valid in line with ENWP, not US copyright laws. ENWP is far stricter in what it allows non-resident content to be used for. If the FUR is not valid, then it gets removed until a valid one is provided or discussion agrees the original FUR is acceptable. This is how the policy is written and how it is interpreted on a daily basis by many experienced editors with regards to NFC. Of who HW happens to be one. So unless you get the written policy changed, you need to understand that non-free content without a valid FUR will keep being removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• You inaccurately represent my views. I most certain;y do not "think any FUR is acceptable", I think that, just like everything else on Wikipedia, the acceptability of a FUR must be a matter of consensus, determined by a consensus discussion, and not by the actions of a single editor, no matter how proficient and experienced they are in patrolling NFC matters.
  I really wish people would stop misrepresenting the position of people who disagree with them on this issue, it's very disconcerting, and not terribly collegial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Consensus already exists and has been tested many many times for almost every situation. Eg you are not going to change the decision that it is not considered valid to use say an album cover on anything but the article dedicated to the album. And so on. WP:NFCC is not an ambiguous policy in 99% of its application. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, HW's disruptive behavior has been seen not only in those kinds of situations, but in other circumstances as well, where the use of the image is easily subject to discussion. But, even taking your point, what's the problem? If HW removes an image, and there's no dispute about it, it's gone. If HW removes an image, and the removal is disputed, he takes it to FfD, where other editors express the obviousness of its non-policy use (as you describe it), and *boom*, it's gone. The only thing the proposal does is force HW to go to FfD in disputed situations, it doesn't undermine policy, and it doesn't limit his ability to remove images in the first place if -- in his judgement -- they violate policy. It simply says if that removal is disputed, then he must get a consensus -- just like everything else on Wikipedia, even BLP removals when they're disputed. If HW had been doing this, as he should have been, instead of edit-warring, there would be no need for this proposal at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Except that NFC, like BLP, expressly places the burden of proof on the editor seeking to restore disputed content. That editor is the one who must achieve consensus. You have this point exactly backwards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• HW: Please point to the place in NFC policy where it says that you, the removing party, have the right to edit war over a disputed image. The disputing editor having the burden is not the same thing as your having carte blanche to edit war. This proposal does not call for a change in NFC policy, nor does it suggest changing the burden in general, it specifically sanctions you because of your behavioral issues. The attempts by you and others to make it appear that the proposal seeks to change policy, or, indeed, is against policy, are misrepresentations of a purely behavioral sanction focused on a single misbehaving editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• By definition removal of clear copyright violations is not edit-warring. With very few exceptions HW's removals fall under this. Where it is disputed, NFCC is clear that the burden relies on the person seeking to re-instate it to provide a valid FUR. If a valid one is not provided, removal is still not edit-warring. Merely disputing a removal under NFCC does not make it not a clear violation. A common situation being an editor arguing 'no clear free alternative is available' which has already been discussed to death on ENWP and a very high bar is set for this. 'I cant get at it easily' is often the actual situation which has been time and time again ruled to be insufficient. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• OMG, is this thread still active? Right now I see 6 support, 5 oppose. If that stays roughly unchanged I don't see anything being done here. If that winds up happening, once again, I suggest ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: WP:COPYVIO policy – which was imposed on us by WP:OFFICE and isn't even something the community came up with (or it wouldn't be so damned paranoid and so far from the actual legal boundaries of fair use) – isn't optional. We are expected to remove potentially non-compliant material, just as with WP:BLP. Under our internal governance system, a claim of fair use of a non-free image is something that must be actively demonstrated to be correct; it is not presumptively correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.