Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

---

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

Start a new discussion

Edit warring to restore NFCC violation and unsourced claims

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)

---

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)

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".[1] 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)

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)

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)

Film Fan and edit warring to restore synthesis

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

In January 2016, Film Fan (talk · contribs) was put under a voluntary 1RR restriction because of extensive edit warring. I don't know whether this is still binding, but it follows an indefinite block for edit warring in October 2013. About two weeks ago, in Peter Rabbit (film), Film Fan reverted me when I removed an unsourced country to the infobox (diff). After I warned him for this, he added a citation that labels one of the production companies as Australian – not the film itself. I explained on the talk page that this is synthesis that ignores the instructions in the template. The discussion went nowhere. On 19 November, Slightlymad asked me to intervene at BPM (Beats per Minute), where Film Fan was edit warring to restore what he believed to be synthesis. I said that due to my previous dispute with Film Fan, it would be best if I didn't get involved and suggested bringing the concerns here to ANI. Today, Lugnuts (talk · contribs) also asked me to intervene. Lugnuts raised the issue of sock puppetry, but I don't think there's any. I want to be clear that I have not run a checkuser, though. What I see is multiple experienced editors saying that something is synthesis (see this talk page discussion for a brief exchange and, unrelatedly, this archived discussion I started a while ago about the same issue). Film Fan once again brushed off their concerns and continued to edit war, while hypocritically telling others to use the talk page. He's already made three reverts in the past 24 hours at BPM (Beats per Minute), and he shows no sign of stopping. His contributions are similarly full of edit warring, including Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (1, 2), Mom and Dad (2017 film) (1, 2, 3), etc. I would recommend restoring the indefinite block for Film Fan because of a long history of disruptive edit warring despite the 1RR restriction, which was supposed to stop this behavior. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I used the talk page. What are you supposed to do if other users refuse to? I thought the revert rule was stop and take it to the talk page, which I did. The edit was then made again weeks later, without any further addition to the conversation, which remains with the last two of my comments unanswered. I tried to direct the other user back to that conversation with no luck. Also, I did suggest the second user was a sock puppet, and I do believe that whether or not that's the case, there must be a link between them because I've never before come across an editor trying to claim that labelling a critically acclaimed film as "critically acclaimed" is somehow problematic. It's sourced, and there are many articles that correctly state that the subject is "critically acclaimed". Regardless of that, I engaged in a debate, or at least tried to. By the way, the nationality of the production companies of a film denote the nationality of the film.

That said, I admit I have been a little eager to jump the gun in recent weeks, and signs of my previous short temper have appeared again, which I'll unashamedly admit is due to being recently bereaved, but would like to point to my many useful edits, and the fact that until recent weeks, I went on a long run of good behavior (two years), which I can commit to returning to with a strong warning. That's the required wake-up call. I have a lot to offer the community. — Film Fan 15:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: do you know if that one revert restriction ever rescinded? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction was not rescinded and should still be in effect. I agree with User:NinjaRobotPirate that, based on the evidence here, the improvement that we looked forward to in January 2016 has not occurred. It's time to restore the original indef block. The user has been blocked 12 times, and as you see here the problem is continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a long time since the last block and I was good for most of that time. All I need is a warning and I can get on with doing my useful edits (mostly film poster uploads) without any problem. — Film Fan 11:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we do not jump straight to an indefinite block for one slight wobble, given Film Fan has demonstrated 23 months of perfectly productive and collegiate editing. Film Fan please consider this thread your warning, and just bear in mind if you're unhappy about a fine detail of a particular article that Wikipedia has over 5 million other articles, of which the majority will have many more things far more wrong with them. fish&karate 12:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's far from a "slight wobble" - since the last block there have been many violations of the 1RR, it's just that most people haven't bothered to raise them in any formal way. Even when they're done on the user's talkpage, they met with comments of "lol fuck off". Here's another talkpage warning from earlier in the year by admin Diannaa, which was reverted by FF. And another warning by an admin that was just reverted. Even while we're having this discussion, they're making multiple reverts on another poster! This is a net drain to the project to allow this nonsense to continue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not make multiple reverts on that poster. I reverted myself, and then reverted once. But thanks, Lugnuts, I knew you'd be supportive, as ever. For what it's worth, 80% of my blocks in years gone by would not have occurred if not for your invaluable input. — Film Fan 18:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"...and then reverted once." - To quote EdJohnston - "The 1RR restriction was not rescinded and should still be in effect." Looking at recent contributions, there's a slow-burning edit-war at Mom and Dad (2017 film), with you reverting one, two, three times. Another "slight blip"? And that's before I start to dig any deeper. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That information is all above. You've been trying to get my blocked for 5+ years because I outwitted you once. Move on. Letting go of little niggly annoyances is the healthiest thing for all involved. — Film Fan 14:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I see you now drop down to personal attacks. Sorry, I only deal in facts, not lies. Here's some more edit-warring from recent months that went un-noticed: The Blackcoat's Daughter from September - one, two, three. Miniseries from September - one, two. It (2017 film) from November - one, two. So these, plus all the examples given, above, show multiple instances of edit-warring and violations of the 1RR imposed by @EdJohnston:. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You're such a lovely bloke. Always with the best of intentions. — Film Fan 18:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's some good perspective. And I realise it's not worth losing all editing privileges for the sake of one small problem in an article. — Film Fan 13:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support disciplinary action I only had a couple interactions with this user (from a long time ago) and he struck me as particularly hostile. Now I realize he had been blocked 12 times!!! (I didn't even think this was possible) and still wants another pass. We all lose our tempers sometimes, but we also got to man up for our actions. Wikipedia isn't kindergarten, you don't get 13th chances. Lugnuts' research above is particularly telling, and a quick glance at his talk page shows several insults or rude comments against User:NinjaRobotPirate, User:ScrapIronIV, User:TheMovieGuy, User:Yoshiman6464, User:Lugnuts, User:Max Tomos — all within the past year. Sorry, but I think it's clear his behaviors won't improve, at least not to the level required by WP:Collaborations. Yes, he does have positive contributions like uploading many "perfect" film posters but they pale in comparison with the time and morale wasted over him. Frankly he doesn't bother me much since we rarely edit the same article (I edit almost every day and never encountered him in the past year), but it'll be disappointing to me if WP takes no action against such behaviors. Just my 2 cents. Timmyshin (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reminding me, Timmyshin. I was attempting to discuss about the Your Name poster since he changed it to the English poster without prior discussion. At first, I attempted to change the poster back on 30 September, but then the edit was reverted the next day, with the comment “See Talk Page”. I quickly undid the edit and gave my comments on the main talk page. His reasoning for changing the was that “Wikipedia specifically recommends using English-language box art for video games, even if the games don't come from English-language countries” and that “There is no rule about what country the poster should come from”, even though WP:FilmPoster suggests to use the original theatrical poster. He eventually complied with using the original Japanese Poster. In addition, I also tried adding to the discussion on his talk page, but then he undid my edits, telling me to discuss on the film’s talk page. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 15:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support disciplinary action My interaction with this dude was extremely hostile. We got into a war over the poster for Phantom Thread. I reverted his uploaded version of it (it was in extremely poor quality, basically a photograph of a new poster for the film) in favor of the previously released poster. I stated that once the new poster was made available in a reasonable quality, then it could update the previously released teaser poster, however, he kept reverting it back to the inferior quality version and then he slapped me with the threat of a block on my talk page! TheMovieGuy

Indeed. It's not just the constant edit-warring, but the hostility and tendentious editing that go hand-in-hand with this editor's modus operandi. There's yet another slow-burning edit war at Gore (film) with edits made by @Rusted AutoParts: simply reverted, saying use the talkpage, but when Rusted AutoParts asks direct questions to FF on multiple occasions, there is just silence. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no such edit war there, Lugnuts, and I have absolutely never been guilty of tendentious editing, but thanks once again for your marvellous effort. You are just super. — Film Fan 17:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn’t refer to it as an edit war either but Film Fan there was no established consensus for any wording. After a month I thought of another word to use that described both situations but you still reverted, pointing to the talk page, where I left you two messages asking why that went ignored. Rusted AutoParts 17:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And if the talk page is ignored by the other users, you have consensus by being the only voice, so go ahead and revert. And I'm done arguing a small point, and it's not an issue for this conversation anyway. Lugnuts is just desperate to have me blocked, for personal reasons. — Film Fan 19:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I find the edit war at File:Phantom Thread.png uneasy. "it is no less official than the first one. Give it up."? Instead of using your instinct and common sense of WP:BDR, you just went ahead reverted a bunch times. I'm not saying the other user wasn't at fault either. But I do have to agree with the other user. I don't know if ignoring BDR is a habit of Film Fan. Two years after the last block seems too long ago to go ahead and say that. I am also troubled about the hostility of their comments on their talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It is well established at this point that in recent weeks I have had something of a relapse, but many of my edits are very valuable, and no one is going to benefit from a block. I'm back on the right track now and and a warning is all I need. Thanks for everyone's contributions. — Film Fan 11:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ignoring BDR is another one of FF's traits, along with his hostility and edit-warring, all mentioned above by multiple users. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked Film Fan for 48 hours. Please see my blocking rationale here, thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. I don't want to drag this out any further, and contrary what FF may or may not believe, I don't want to kick a man when he's down. I strongly suggest that when the 48hr block expires that Film Fan adheres to a voluntary WP:0RR on all articles (with the exception of obvious vandalism) for 3 or maybe 6 months, before going back to the 1RR as mentioned above. If he is sincere about changing his ways, then this should not be an issue, otherwise it's back to longer, if not indef, blocks. I'd be grateful if someone who isn't involved, but can take time to just read through this thread, add that in the closing notes. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Somewhat off-topic tongue-in-cheek comment Reading this thread is what taught me of the existence of an upcoming Hollywood film adaptation of Peter Rabbit. I suddenly feel very depressed.

Significantly more serious comment I agree with Alex's action here. Restoring an indef block because, two years after its repeal, there was one violation of an essential unblock condition would be overdoing it. It doesn't appear, based on FF's comments here, that he has been causing endless disruption and violating every policy we have on a near-constant basis, and I've literally seen recipients of a WP:STANDARDOFFER get away with just that for months on end. That was probably an extreme case that wasn't addressed appropriately by the admin corps (partly because the user in question was being shielded by editing in one of those problematic topic areas where everyone violates all of our content policies and some even our conduct policies on a fairly regular basis), but carrot-before-stick approach definitely feels better here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible template abuse on Portland, Oregon

Showing some unexpected images at the moment. Unable to determine source. Dawnseeker2000 19:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon

Not sure if it is just me, but if I go to that article (and no others), I get a pornographic image, and links send me to Gay Nigger Association of America. I can get into the page history via other means, but nothing there seems to be the issue. Not sure where to go with this. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed [2]. Revdel / additional purging may be needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Revdel'd, and user blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad it was not some random infection on my computer. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Guess it would be worth checking that all redirects to protected templates are also protected? –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'd already suggested this before, the last time it happened... ansh666 20:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Since this sort of vandalism seems to be increasing, can we go ahead and do that, like, immediately? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a list or something like that of full-protected templates anywhere? ansh666 19:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ansh666 Category:Wikipedia protected templates Would probably need a bot. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

That's an awful lot...I was hoping for a list without redirects (which the category of course has) but either way that's far too big to process by hand. I don't know much about bots, unfortunately. ansh666 03:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Report

108.45.138.63 (talk · contribs) I like to report this IP for making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, especially in the Syre (album) article [3] [4] [5] [6]. This IP also vandalized the album ratings template as well, by adding incorrect information and rearrange the reviews for no good reason [7] [8]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Done. User:Walter Görlitz, User:Sergecross73, User:IllaZilla--you all do music: I seem to remember a case like this (ratings changes) from a few months or more ago, from a known disruptor. Ring any bells? Drmies (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: If you take a look at Varun3281 (talk · contribs) and 72.83.65.116 (talk · contribs) edits, their edits look very similar to each other. I think it's the same editor using different accounts, but that's just my opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

First let me say it's scary seeing me summoned to an ANI discussion, but I'm glad it's just for advice. Most of the anons I encounter editing music articles focus on genres, and one from Italy that adds unsourced information about band members. The pattern of edits that this anon has made seem quite advanced, almost as if they have been blocked recently. The pattern doesn't look familiar. I see a short block has been applied. I'd be happy to comment if the anon reappears. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I'm sorry if this section is a bit of an anticlimax--if I block you for a week, would that help? Drmies (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, that 72 IP may well be the same as that account, but I don't think it's the same as the IP I blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Don't go out of your way. I'm OK. Just happy to be of some help here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: That's maybe true, but when I see Varun3281 adding incorrect information to articles like this, similar to the way the IP is making right here, I can't help myself to believe it's the same editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Well, none of the edits I had looked at were like that: you found the ones that clinched it, and I have some other evidence that suggests it too. I blocked the Varun account indefinitely since obviously they continue to make the same disruptive edits. In relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inorap, Sro23 has a point when they say the accounts aren't used simultaneously; perhaps they simply dropped the old account. It might be possible to fill in the holes with various IPs but that doesn't matter: Varun needs to come to Jesus (by copping to disruptive editing and asking for an unblock), or all such edits by similar IPs can be summarily reverted and the IPs blocked for block evasion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, I caught the ping days ago, but was too busy to answer at the time, and forgot to swing back around. Regardless, my input is pretty similar to Walter - there's so many disruptive IPs and newbies that make unconstructive edits to review score and music genre that it's pretty impossible to tie it to just one person, but rest assured, the block was deserved, socking or not. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Julia Mora article

• Julia Mora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone keeps editing this article ,writing unsourced stuff. It seems as if Mora is writing it herself. Look at the hundreds of edits over the past few years. It says in past edits she has been married to a Dennis Peterson and a Alejandro Andrisani. It may be block evasion by someone previously indefinitely blocked(who had edited this page before) Someone keeps writing she was born in 1972. That simply can't be true. The Miami herald wrote she was born in 1962 in 1985. It's impossible a 12 year old competed in Miss El Salvador contest. Most likely at least half the content on this article is untrue. I think this article needs edited by a administrator and locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is she even notable? Winning Miss El Salvador doesn't confer automatic notability, and nor does merely competing (as oppposed to winning) Miss Universe. All the sources are/were unreliable so it's effectively an unsourced BLP at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Al hotties are notable...

So, it seems to me pretty likely that the WP:SPA obsessing over this article is a sockpuppet of the blocked WP:SPA that started it, Intelectual123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Treasure55555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may also be a sock. See also Andreslorca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The current one, Daquan7474 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is either a stalker or the subject's PR, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

More socking in the AfD.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hey gang, there's more! [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Daquan7474, may I ask why this is the only article you have ever edited or commented on on Wikipedia? Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Somebody has left an obviously biased comment on Daquan7474's talk page. It is not signed, but I will find the username. (Somebody obviously doesn't now what a revision history is.) TomBarker23 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Got them. 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:809F:585A:2176:1425| (talk, you're nicked. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What now?

I need a little help now. I don't know how to add a diff yet, and I don't want to delete the comment on Daquan7474's talk page until I have diff'd it.

I have left a level 1 warning about false info, NPOV and including your name on talk pages about the IP concerned. Can somebody do the rest while we see how they react? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBarker23 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, instead of diffing it, here's the offending comment: "Daquan7474, it seems like you have something "personal" against Miss El Salvador Universe, Julia Mora. You keep deleting her information. She is all over the internet. I appreciate it if you please stop. We understand that when someone wins a tittle like this, there are always people that cannot get over it and harass beauty queens but please leave Julia alone. She is a great woman." There is no way this is allowed. I will clean the talk page. TomBarker23 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at their contributions. This is crazy. Accusations of harassment, no edits not about the subject, offending edit summaries- basically, this user looks like a fairly simple NOTHERE account. [[10]] TomBarker23 (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and WP:OWN behavior

• Olsen24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been very persistent in replacing the images in this list with images they took, for example [11] and [12]. They have also been reverting other users' edits to the article without explanation, including readding information deemed unencyclopedic and removing citation needed tags without explanation. Attempts have been made to discuss on the article talk page and user's talk page, but the user has refused most attempts at discussion. There have been numerous 3RR violations, and two blocks were issued as well as a full protection of the article involved, but the edit warring has persisted. I'm requesting here that some sort of more extensive action be taken, whether it be an extended block or a topic ban. I have notified the user in question - meanwhile, pinging other users interested in the case: @Pi.1415926535, Mtattrain, and SportsFan007: – Train2104 (t • c) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

> Admittedly, the user in question has contributed positively in some ways, such as removing much trivial information and providing some reasonable images, but once he/she started replacing almost every image and reverting any edit that did not agree with his/her edits, the line was crossed. Mtattrain (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

He just hit <SAVE>.

• Tell me again why we have fancrufty articles on every model of bus in a given city (including notations on specific individual buses that are out of service because e.g. they were in an accident), on individual but stops, and so on? We even have an editnotice for this kind of thing: {{railfan editnotice}}. EEng 01:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I created said editnotice in an attempt to stem the expansion of such content. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Not working, apparently. Do we have the technology to send a painful electric shock to these people when they hit <SAVE>? EEng 02:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

All electrical shocks aside, Olsen24 has shown no indication that they understand why they are being reverted, nor why much of the information they have been adding is trivial. I don't see them likely to suddenly start engaging productively, or stopping their habit of adding their own images. (I've dealt with a similar issue of vanity images on MBTA Bus, and that user also refuses to accept critiques of their photographs.)

Mtattrain, I think you need to calm down some, and you also need to think more about the relevance of the information you are adding. Lists such as these should be a high-level overview of a fleet. Production year, fuel type, total number of buses, and an indication of units saved in museum collections are appropriate for that. Powertrain details, daily updates of which buses are in service, and a listing of units removed from service due to accidents are not. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Dearchiving this as it has not been acted upon and the user's behavior continues. Forgive me if this is against ANI practice... – Train2104 (t • c) 17:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support block per OWN and repeated refusal to get the point. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a long block is needed. But, I think that a block of about a week is needed, in addition to the implementation of a topic ban from bus-related articles if they edit war again in the next six months on bus articles. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Oops, forgot to read something. Anyways, I don't think a long block is needed; the only thing that is needed is a topic ban from buses, appealable in six months. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is about their uploading of grainy unneeded images, inability to communicate (even now, looking at their talk page they seem to be in denial about the quality of their images)) and editwarring. A block is needed here to stop this pattern of behaviour; past blocks have proven futile. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

> Pi.1415926535, I suppose that what I have been adding isn't needed, it is just very strange that such trivia is now being pointed. If administrator editors don't think of such information highly, though, I'll start removing the specific details. Mtattrain (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

>> I guess I've been venting too much steam over Olsen24, admittedly. To be fair, however, as many users have been stating, the mentioned user hasn't been contributing the best content. Mtattrain (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

>> Even with multiple (sometimes seemingly forceful) administrators warning user Olsen24, the user is failing to discuss on article talk pages. Someone should either let user Olsen24 know about the function of talk pages on articles, or take some other kind of action. Mtattrain (talk) 14:18, 7 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): [13]
• Second AN/I report (18 November 2017): [14]

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, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. (The one time he did respond, it was to denigrate the intelligence of the person making the complaint. [20]. 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. [21] 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. [22] 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)

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

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)

user:Yelysavet vs. Interwikilinks

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

Yelysavet is on a mission deleting InterWikilinks. The majority of his edits seem to be concerned with the removal of links pointing to the equivalent articles in other language versions of Wikipedia.

Andy Dingley has questioned these actions and I have tried to explain that these links are useful and neccessary as long as Wikidata does not allow the connection of more than one article in any language to an article in another language.

Obviously the page structure of two wikis will never be the same and one language Wikipedia will always divide a certain subject into more articles and use more lemmas than another. "Forking" the Wikidata entry and the interwikilink is therefore often not avoidable if we want to make it easy for the users to refer to more than one equally relevant article existing in another language.

I consider the removal of interwikilinks obstructive behaviour and would like to hear your opinions.

thank you,

KaiKemmann (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like they last edited in October. Max Semenik (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Albuquerque TV station articles

User GMC GNC keeps reverting my edits on KLUZ-TV and KTFQ-DT, adding inaccurate information. I think we may be involved in an edit war. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you posted at WP:ANEW? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Los Angeles IPs promoting the band False Alarm

We need a rangeblock on some L.A.-based IPs who are persistently promoting the band False Alarm (band). Two IPs were recently blocked: Special:Contributions/2600:1:B110:9B05:312D:D10E:62D0:329A and Special:Contributions/2600:1:B150:B87C:19D2:8151:C534:D13B. The range Special:Contributions/2600:1:B109:94CA:0:0:0:0/43 contains mostly this person's contributions starting from December 2, with just a few good-faith but very low quality edits made by other people who would be collaterally affected by a rangeblock. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1:B103:93E0:4AE6:C7A8:756A:ADFD reported at AIV, after warning on their user talk. Was just now blocked as a single address. - DVdm (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And here we go with another range: 2600:1:b142:6f44:5f6d:15a2:83a6:611 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). - DVdm (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

2600:1:B100::/41 range blocked for a week. If that doesn't resolve it, I can do a longer one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Block review

• Jikepaddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ejikeme nwosu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ejikeme Nwosu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Reformed Youth Movement of Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I blocked this user and nuked the re-created autobiography at Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ejikeme Nwosu. A review of contributions shows nothing other than self-promotion, including creating an article on a group he created. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Good block but support unblock if the unblock request is truly promising. Excelse (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Good block, and I have a hard time imagining an unblock request that would convince me. See especially the deleted contributions (admins only, unfortunately). Bishonen | talk 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
• Good block. While I can't see the deleted content, what is live suggests this is someone engaged in fairly standard WP:VSCA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

SPA - MakinaterJones

MakinaterJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

User:MakinaterJones is a WP:SPA with a grudge against editors that stand up against predatory open access publishing. All of their contributions either defend predatory publishers, demonize Jeffrey Beall in some way, or accuse our editors of either being Jeffrey Beall himself, or plaster them with inappropriate warnings and references to scholarlyoa.net, which is an attack blog against Beall, by spoofing the legitimate scholarlyoa.org formerly run by Beall. scholarlyoa.net makes quite ridiculous accusations that Randykitty is Beall as well, so this is long-term editor harassment [I also know who Randykitty is IRL, and they aren't Beall]. I don't know if MakinaterJones is affiliated with the attack site, but referencing it just show how far the deep end we're into here. This has gone lone enough, and they should be indef-blocked per WP:NOTHERE. (Edit: This may also involve this IP.)

Pinging affected editors on this, @David Eppstein, Randykitty, Jytdog, and Doug Weller:. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Headbomb. Indef overdue indeed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that this person is nothere. I filed a sock case a couple of days ago that is awaiting administration. Not linking here per beans.Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Jytdog: Hi, would you mind re-opening this thread? I think this report should ideally stay open for a little longer (even if the matter is potentially resolved; my guesses is probably not) as multiple editors were involved over the past two weeks, suggesting more input (without the time sink from the account) may be better. For those interested, my blocking notice for this account can be seen here. Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

done. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, I knew about MakinatorJones and the associated IP's behavior here but I hadn't paid attention to the scholarlyoa name-spoof attack site. Do we have a blacklist of attack sites that the filter prevents links to? This one seems like a candidate for addition to the list. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

David Eppstein, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. I'll leave it to you since you know what's going on better. EEng 23:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with the block. I interacted with MakinatorJones quite a bit in a mediator role and came to much the same conclusion as EEng: sea-lioning or some odd variant of Wikilawyering. They made a point of creating an account, but seemed somewhat careless about editing while logged out. A stickler on certain policies, but clearly clueless about throwing around WP jargon. Too eager to accuse others of bad behavior and unresponsive when called on to change their own bad habits. It all adds up to a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block. This is a very clear case of WP:NOTHERE given the obvious determination to use the encyclopedia to promote a particular cause. Johnuniq (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Note: I was close to blocking this account when I blocked the IP, it should be noted that the community banned OMICS group has been going on with this anti-Beall campaign on wiki for quite long, and I've blocked accounts in multiple continents from that farm. They have also been hiring PR agencies on this front and have acquisitions in multiple geographies and that's not yet reflected in our articles on the individual journals. The main account under which the SPI is filed is Scholarscentral. That SPI grouping is based in India, but I've blocked others from their acquisitions in the UK and Canada too. —SpacemanSpiff 03:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mass CSD nominations of railway talk pages

Dw122339 (talk · contribs) has nominated a whole load of railway station article talk pages for WP:CSD#G8 as self-redirects, which seems to be a by-product of "Railway Station" being renamed to "railway station" on all of them, which suggests the move somehow got messed up somewhere. These just all need renaming to the right target, not deleted. Can anyone help clean up? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we actually need these talk pages? Is there any purpose of keeping them?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's possible some are linked from project pages, or user talk pages, or somewhere - I haven't checked all 120 odd. I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world if they were deleted, but equally we're not short on disk space, so they're not harming anyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I would personally prefer deleting them after checking the backlinks, but if we want to keep them probably rollbacking and fixing would be the best option.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And deleting wouldn't save disk space anyway, because deleted pages are never actually deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly; I distinctly recall reading at some point that deletion takes more disk space than redirecting does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing you do reduces the size of the data stored. Every operation increases it. Period. EEng 23:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious, disruptive edit of User Asdfghjklkjhgfdsasdfghjklkjhgfds

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

The user made an extensive, disruptive edit to the Quicksort page (Diff 813879861) and self-reverted it next minute (Diff 813880008).

The edit looks like semi-automatic transformation of the text, and I wonder if some day such modifications may appear in other pages, and not get reverted. Please supervise the user and possibly the respective IP address... --CiaPan (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a cut-and-paste vandalism job with the Visual Editor: see how their vandalism spree didn't affect any text inside a piped link or reference template which wouldn't be visible on the page. And besides, they self-reverted. Will advise to do their tests in a sandbox, otherwise so long as they don't keep doing it there's not a problem. As a side note, it's extremely unlikely that this sort of thing would go unnoticed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Aye, either ClueBot would revert it or a filter would catch and log the random gibberish. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Contributory copyright infringement on Windows Media Center

• Windows Media Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 50.39.196.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hello.

The editor from 50.39.196.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been engaged in contributory copyright infringement in Windows Media Center article. This user has created a section, euphemistically called "Unofficial Windows 10 Port", dedicated to assisting access to an illegitimately distributed copy of Windows Media Center and documenting its releases.

This is, of course, a violation of our Wikipedia:Copyrights policy and the United States laws:

However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. [...] Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [23]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

I have deleted this content (worth 18 kilobytes!) but revision supression and action against this warez distributor is still required.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Similar edits added by this user (and subsequently removed) at Windows Media Center Extender. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like every revision on Windows Media Center going back to August 31, 2016 may need to be revdel'd, along with an entire year's worth of revisions on the other articles, since nobody caught this until now. Well spotted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've revdeled the Windows Media Center edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Colonies Chris

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

There has been a long-running tendency of this editor making a number of edits using a script, some of which are disputed. Specifically, the practice of removing State/province after city even in cases where City, State is used for consistency (like tables and infoboxes in basketball and other sport-related articles see example here). He cites WP:USPLACE as the basis for these edits, but that section does not address dropping “State” except in the case of naming articles. For sport articles, keeping State intact does serve a purposes for the reader. In addition to adopting a consistent format that makes infoboxes scannable, use of State in college recruiting tables allows a reader to discern how national or regional a school’s recruiting base. A basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table. My issue with this user is that he applies these changes with minimal policy backing, against existing consensus, and as yet to isten to the several editors who ave objected. I have been involved in discussions at least back to July 2016, then again in October of that year. The editor stopped this behavior, but then started up again recently. The editor never listens to objections, despite multiple editors expressing similar concerns, so I feel like ANI is the last resort. I was warned that this editor does listen or change behavior, but I have tried to discuss directly at each instance. I would like this editor to stop removing State after city in sport infoboxes and tables. One of the issues is this editor edits via script, so he may make multiple changes with one click. It is undue burden for editors like me to sort through all of these changes to revert the one area in question - he can remove it from his script. Worth noting that other editors have a similar concern about this editor converting State/province abbreviations to full names in tables, but I do not have a strong opinion on this. At issue, though, is the same type of response - not listening and “enforcing” non-existing (or open to interpretation) policy. Rikster2 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, for US places article titling conventions generally control how cities are referred to in articles -- see MOS:PN#Place_names. Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate. I'll also say, however (stimulated by one of the diffs you supplied) I'm pretty sure we almost never use the two-digit postal abbreviations for states (e.g. CA) but rather the older-style abbreviations instead (e.g. Calif.), where abbreviation is warranted; but I don't recall if that's said anywhere or just implicit in MOS:PN combined with WP:USPLACE. [Later: Well, see MOS:POSTABBR ]. EEng 05:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

...my observation has been that the abbreviations are the opposite. I've seen , FL; , GA; etc. used reguarly but never the "long-form abbreviations" to my recollection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly the sort of topic on which lots and lots of articles might be doing the wrong thing, but like I said I can't recall a MOS provision on point; I could be wrong. What I'm vaguely thinking is that, while we expect most readers to recognize states of the US, provinces of Canada, and counties of the UK, we don't expect them to know all the postal abbreviations. Hell, even I get MI and MO and AL and AK mixed up. EEng 05:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

USPLACE most certainly does not mandate ALWAYS dropping State after major cities. The right move would be to try and change/clarify the guideline if one is passionate that this SHOULD be the case. What would not be the right move is to bludgeon 100s of articles with your interpretation of how the guidance should be applied in the face of multiple editors disagreeing with your interpretation of the guidance over the course of years. Sports projects have the leeway to include State for major city in tables/infoboxes for consistency and scannability (I leave it alone in prose). Let’s focus on the editor behavior here. Rikster2 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, upon review, MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers. “New York” vs. “Nueva York” is addressed, but “Cincinnati” vs. “Cincinnati, Ohio” is not and both Cincinnati variants are correct via language or history. It also doesn’t address tables or infoboxes where internal consistency may be desired. I don’t see the value to the reader to drop the State from 3 out of 35 entries in a college sports schedule, just because an article is named “Minneapolis” instead of “Minneapolis, Minnesota.” Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nobody said anything about "mandating", so calm down.
• As for "MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers": No, what MOS:PN#Place_names says is In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which in turn gives detailed guidelines on when to use modifiers, and which. As for tables and infoboxes, I already said, "Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate", so again – calm down. Given that someone's now pointed us to MOS:POSTABBR, that leaves the question, when abbreviation is warranted as in an infobox, of whether the two-letter modern postal abbreviations should be used e.g. CA versus the older Calif. and so on; for non-US readers the latter gives them at least a fighting chance of figuring out what's what. But that's just off the top of my head.

EEng 20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I am calm, and you should be too. I am not even contesting the use of abbreviations, as I said in the first statement. I merely said that others have contested this and have experienced the same editor behavior in response. the ANI is about how a user responds/behaves to content and guideline differences of opinion. It’s doubtful we are going to set/clarify guidelines in this discussion. The point is that there is not clear line that this user is correct, so it’s inappropriate to cast it that way. How we come to agreements about gray areas in guidance is a central part of how Wikipedia operates. If I just wanted to debate and clarify policy this isn’t where I would have taken it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• You said he is doing this via script? WP:BOTPOL should apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• First, to clarify what I'm actually doing. I make a lot of minor gnoming edits, and among those - not on their own but as part of a larger package of changes - I also expand US state abbreviations (in line with the MOS at MOS:POSTABBR) and remove the state where the city is well-known, according to the AP convention described at WP:USPLACE, which is used widely within WP. A reader gains nothing from the non-news that New York City is in New York State, or that Los Angeles is in California. I find the argument about visual inconsistency in a table pretty unconvincing - is a reader really going to find their understanding disrupted by the omission of the state from cities known worldwide like Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Chicago? Nor am I convinced by the argument that 'a basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table' - how many readers can locate relevant cities without reference to a map? And a trip from one side of a state to another can be far longer than to a neighbouring city in another state. In summary, Rikster2 may say I don't listen to objections - what that really means is that he and I have different opinions and I don't choose to stop making improvements simply because he doesn't like them. That said, I do generally try to avoid basketball-related articles, simply to avoid this sort of hassle. (In contrast, I've made a large number of similar changes to football-related articles - a question about whether this was acceptable was raised; only one editor seriously objected but gained no support from other editors). Colonies Chris (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• well, not really an “I don’t like it” case. More of a “I expect if someone is mass-implementing changes that they will stop doing so once a difference of opinion is raised about a non-consensus set of edits” thing. I am not the only editor who has talked to you about this issue over time and, as I pointed out to you in October, you never stopped making the edits in question long enough to have a discussion before continuing to move forward. Per WP:CYCLE, my typical experience has been that an editor would pause in the disputed editing to have the discussion and Drive to some sort of agreement. You never have done this. Also, while I question if ANI is the place to talk policy, there is no question that your propensity to remove State is not clearly in WP:USPLACE today. There is a reasonable discussion to be had as to if State should always be removed, but pushing through edits is not furthering it. I never said a reader can’t figure out Cleveland is in Ohio, but removing it from a list slows down the scannability of those tables. And, yes, states are important to college athletics - coaches are evaluated by how well they recruit their home state (which is harder to scan for the reader if removed from some). Just because YOU don’t think they are needed doesn’t mean there isn’t value for including State in some cases (like tables and infoboxes). Also, in my opinion, consistency of like pages matters for aetsthetics and general reading of like pages. Regardless, you act like there is a bright line guideline that you are enforcing where this is not the case and I am not the only editor to call you on it. Also, I hadn’t thought about it but User:Only in death is right about WP:BOTPOL. At that guideline it clearly states that part of the criteria in using scripts/bots is that edits being driven should only be performing tasks for which there is consensus. There is no consensus to remove State in every instance. Rikster2 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables, and make it a sortable parameter. That would be easier to use for the purposes you describe, and the question of removal would not arise. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That is worth discussing for schedule tables. Now I have a suggestion for you - just take the removal of State out of your script. It’s not a change for which there is clear consensus, has been disputed, and if you remove it you are making edits for which it seems like you have better backing from a policy perspective (like full State name vs. abbreviation). Would solve 90% of the issue. Rikster2 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The same behavior can be seen at American football and ice hockey pages. Nobody is against removing the state in the text ("New York City" instead of "New York City, New York"), but tables and infoboxes are a completely different story. This has been objected not once and not twice, but Colonies Chris just ignores it. We list "City, State" for consistency reasons, and it should stay that way. It is very strange and not consistent when you see "Toronto" in one column, while other columns list "Toronto, Ontario", and people that are not editing Wikipedia might get confused and either remove the state from every instance containing it or re-add it. Furthermore, sometimes the bot he is using makes wrong edits. Such as, "GA" stands for "Goals against" on ice hockey's pages, but his bot corrects it to "Georgia", which is nowhere near the intended meaning. As for "If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables" – some tables are already huge so we do not need another column to make it even more problematic, and that is why some tables contain abbreviations. However, I do not really care about the removal of states' abbreviations, but common sense should be there when removing them. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• • RE; inappropriate conversion of GA; when this happened, did you notify me about it? (No, you didn't.) If you had done so, three things would have happened (a) I would have fixed it (b) I would have apologised (c) I would have fixed my script. But since you didn't bother to notify me (just stored it up for later use against me, it seems) none of those things happened. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have had a quickish look at their contribution history and it appears it does fall under BOTPOL due to the automated nature of the edits. Which requires consensus *before* making these edits by automation. Since I havnt seen any such consensus anywhere, I am going to page an experienced BAG member to take a look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was archived with no administrator action or moderation. Now that the discussion was archived, the editor is back at it (note the removal of “Indiana” from “Indianapolis, Indiana”). And also, another editor has voiced concern with the practice. We need a call here. Should the script have to take out the provision removing State as has been suggested? Rikster2 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• In previous comments, you have claimed that the state is important because of tabular consistency - but none of the changes I made in the article you link to were related to tables. You have also complained that you need the state to judge coaches' performance in recruiting home state players - but none of my changes concerned that either. Fine, bring in an admin if you like. I made about 65 improvements to that page, of which 6 involved removing the state on major cities - all entirely in accordance with guidelines, as I've described above. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Removing State after city is NOT MOS and there is NOT consensus to remove it in all cases. As has been pointed out, WP:BOTPOL applies and this should not be in your script. Also, I find it interesting that you waited until this discussion was archived to start running this script again after sitting out for awhile. What’s behind that? I want an admin to weigh in - you and I have gone as far as we are going to on this issue. Rikster2 (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, don’t pretend like some of the edits don’t deal with exactly the issue I was talking about. But the point is internal consistency (within an article or across like articles) of templates and infoboxes is certainly something that has value to many. I am frankly not concerned if I revert a number of edits I don’t disagree with in the process of reverting edits that we have discussed time and time and time again. Why is my time less valuable than yours? It takes me twice as much time to revert only the edits in dispute when you are able to just remove the disputed changes from your script (and you should). Rikster2 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As I am the editor that most recently raised the concern on their talk page, I think Rikster2 has a point. It is not necessarily the fact that Colonies Chris is using the bot, but it is that they dispute when people question their use of it and sometimes seems to have a bit of a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude about it. ("My edits reflect agreed community guidelines. I don't need to provide further justification. You need to have a clear reason for overriding those - so far, all I've seen is an appeal to 'consistency' and nothing to explain how this consistency is any help to our readers. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)" in response to other editors disagreeing with the removal to consistency in a table.) While most of their edits are great, I also think the bot should be subject to review. As I pointed out in This edit, the bot arguably made the league member table visibly worse, leaving all different styles of naming. There is no guideline about place names specifically for usage in list tables and infoboxes, except for where projects have agreed upon one, that I know of. Specifically for tables, I feel WP:NORULES should apply and just use common sense as most editors prefer the consistency in the tables. As pointed multiple times by multiple parties, I think we are just asking for a little more cooperation and less condescending reactions (calling our criticism "petty harassment") from Colonies Chris. Yosemiter (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rikster, have you opened a discussion at an article or project talk page about this? ANI seems premature. And some of your reverts are quite puzzling, like this one where you edit summary misrepresents the change and moves back toward the less-preferred postal codes. Perhaps you can find a case where your version is defensibly better in some respect, and put the discussion there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, over a year ago (in addition to the multiple times I have addressed this with the editor in question directly, links to at least three of these comments going back about 18 months are in the first statement). Also, the template documentation (example) shows City, State as preferred for basketball templates and infoboxes. However, I am not the person trying to force non-consensus edits using a script (which sounds like it goes against WP:BOTPOL) - it feels like the person who wants to add this to a script involving a number of other more non-controversial edits is the one who needs to Drive a consensus before doing so. Chris has never tried to start an article/policy conversation on this topic and in my opinion hasn’t undertaken a conversation on the matter in good faith even when brought to his talk page (did not stop making the same types of edits when called on it, even long enough to have a discussion). As for my edits - I didn’t at all misrepresent the edit. I said the removal of State wasn’t consensus or MOS and that he should fix his script and try again. The time/effort to pick through his script’s edits to fix the one piece that doesn’t have consensus should not be pushed to users like me just because someone is too lazy or stubborn to take the controversial item out and instead plows on. After 18 months, ANI is not at all premature. Rikster2 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rikster2 What do you expect to happen in this ANI case? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already made the suggestion that Colonies Chris should be compelled to remove the part of his script that removes State from his script per WP:BOTPOL, as this is an edit type that does not reflect consensus and has been disputed many times by many editors. Rikster2 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Youy do realise that you have accused me of both continuing to make edit despite your objections, and - as if I had some sinister plan - stopping making edits while it was under discussion here! Yes, I paused making those edits while this discussion was live. But when it ended up archived without reaching any conclusion, I resumed. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know about a sinister plan, but it is demonstrably true that you have continued to make these sorts of edits despite my (and other editors’) objections over many months. And you just said yourself that you stopped editing then resumed when this ANI was archived by a bot after 72 hours without comment. Is there a complaint in there somewhere? Rikster2 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:AWBRULES states: "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale. @Colonies Chris: Please demonstrate that consensus exists for any further removal of states from tables and infoboxes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There is already a consensus, as evidenced by MOS:POSTABBR, WP:USPLACE and MOS:PN#Place_names. The fact that some editors chhoose not to accept that consensus doesn't invalidate it. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

POSTABBR is irrelevant as no one in this discussion is disputing use of full State name vs. abbreviation. The other two guidelines do NOT indicate consensus that State is dropped in all cases, including tables, templates and infoboxes were consistency is desired. This is like saying that “Bill Clinton” can never be referred to as “William Jefferson Clinton” in a list because the article is called “Bill.” If a template or list has a CIty, State format there is nothing in those guidelines that mandates (or even explicitly suggests) dropping State for the handful of cities that don’t list it in their article title. If you want the guideline to explicitly call this out, then the burden is on you to facilitate that discussion before plowing forward with hundreds of articles. You have made a significant assumption about what is and is not consensus here. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which includes WP:USPLACE, states: "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus." Moreover, WP:PG reads: "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." As multiple editors have given similar good-faith rationales to keep the states, the WP:AWBRULES policy places the onus on you, the AWB operator, to gain broader consensus to follow the guideline for this case and disallow the "common sense" exception. What is the urgency to bypass policy to force an MOS change via automation? If there is consensus, the changes you desire will happen soon enough.—Bagumba (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: If an editor manually turned a table with a cities column from this:

City
Buffalo, NY
Raleigh, NC
New York City, NY
Philadelphia, PA

to this:

City
Buffalo, NY
Raleigh, North Carolina
New York City
Philadelphia

on a highly viewed page such as the National Hockey League it would have been reverted in an instant. Your bot is making questionable stylistic edits to tables and infoboxes, while also making the good edits in prose. No one is arguing against POSTABBR. We are simply asking you to review your bot's edits because as seen in the above table, it is considered unacceptable by consensus. It is therefore creating more work for other editors because then we have to through and cleanup after your bot (much of which has fallen on Rikster2's interests, hence their frustration). Yosemiter (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've looked into the NHL page that you complain of; it wasn't at first clear to me how some inconsistencies arose (e.g. "Buffalo, NY" on one line, but just a couple of lines below, "Sunrise, Florida", expanded from "Sunrise, FL". Then I realised that the source of the problem was the already-present inconsistency; the first was encoded as "[[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]], [[New York (state)|NY]]" (two separate links, disregarding the advice at MOS:LINKSTYLE "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link. Consider rephrasing the sentence, omitting one of the links, or using a more specific single link") The example you provide above has the same internal inconsistency. So you're complaining that my actions have made visible your inconsistency and disregard of good practice. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yosemiter appeared to be saying that your edits took a consistent format of using state postal codes and converted it to use a mix of postal codes (Buffalo, NY), fully expanded state names (Raleigh, North Carolina), and no state names at all (New York City). And you seem to be saying that your scripts were limited to producing garbage in, garbage out.—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba is correct, I was trying to point out your script, while correctly trying to fix POSTABBR, took NOTBROKEN and consistent links and a typically understandable format, and made it an ugly hodgepodge styles (I pointed out the four different versions that ended up on the page instead of 31, I know about the Sunrise expansion, I just used the Raleigh example instead). It was NOT inconsistent before, so not "already-present" (they all had the "improper" format you point out). It was something that could easily have been fixed, by you, if you actually reviewed your bot's edits (something that I ended up doing while keep it consistent and not using abbreviations). Yet you continue to argue that your bot is just fine and perfect. My complaint is that you are causing other editors to clean up after YOUR bot instead of just realizing and accepting that there is an issue. Yosemiter (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Failure to comply with WP:CITEVAR at Yugoslav coup d'état

• Yugoslav coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:CITEVAR

The subject article was promoted to GA in 2013 and has been pretty stable until November. For a number of years it has used the sfn template ({{sfn|Bloggs|2018|p=12}}) for citations, ie shortened footnotes linking to the full citation in the References section. On 24 November, User:Axxxion began to edit the article, adding material, apparently from a reliable source, and initially using the sfn template (see these edits). There was some argy-bargy over their changes to the article outside of the new material. Axxxion then began adding further information, some from at least one unreliable source but others that appear to be reliable, but now using the bare reference system (<ref></ref>) for citations (see here and here). I objected to this on the basis that the citation style has been established for this article, and Axxxion has failed to use it and therefore to comply with WP:CITEVAR. I believe it is the responsibility of the editor wishing to make the edits to do so in accordance with the existing citation style used in the article in question. I also believe it should not be my job to find the full details of the sources he wishes to use and then to create short and long citations using the correct style. I moved the new material and citations to the talk page of the article so that Axxxion could work on them there to bring them into line with the citation style already in use in the article, but he continues to reinsert them over my objections. I have even offered (here) to demonstrate how to do it using one of the citations he wishes to use, but my offer has been rebuffed. As it is turning into an edit war, I have asked for full protection of the article for a week so this issue can be resolved. I seek a consensus decision on this matter from uninvolved admins and experienced editors. I have advised Axxxion of this thread (here). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh sheesh. Adding valid encylopedic info to articles is far more important to the project than farting around with those templates. If the references are sufficient for human readers to find the sources, we're doing our job writing an encyclopedia even if we're not providing enough unpaid labor to satisfy the scraping companies. You don't have any responsibility to add the templates and it's fine to leave that task for editors who like doing that sort of thing. If nobody else wants to do it either, that tells me the templates are more trouble than they're worth.

I don't believe that the GA status of the article is in any way imperiled by the citation styles being inconsistent. Can you imagine a GA review decertifying the article over something like that? At worst someone who cares about the damn templates would fix them. As someone who doesn't care about templates, I'm perfectly satisfied if it never gets done. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:GACR: "Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style." (emphasis mine). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you taken this to dispute resolution, @Peacemaker67:? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bushranger, yeah, I understand that a perfect editor would add good content and format their citations in a consistent style, but we tolerate imperfection in this project. I'm much happier with an editor contributing good content with inconsistently styled citations, than one who gets all their templates formatted perfectly but doesn't contribute any useful content. My guess is that taking the matter to dispute resolution won't improve the situation and will probably make it worse. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bushranger, I have a fair amount of experience with various forms of DR, and essentially I did not think any form of DR would be useful here, largely due to the interaction I've already had with Axxxion on the page and his talk page. I would add that I have reviewed over 175 GAs, and I have always applied the standard that inline citations should use a consistent style. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how protecting the article will help either. I really just wouldn't worry about this. If you feel strongly enough about the missing templates to be willing to fix them, then fix them. If not, just leave the mixed style alone and maybe someone else will fix it later. I'd only escalate or protect the page if someone adds the templates and Axxion edit wars to take them back out. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, every one here. I find it quite indicative that some people on this thread are condemning arbitrary action in the article in question by Peacemaker doing so anonymously. Apparently they feel potentially intimidated by this admin. Fortunately, we are not here in Russ Wiki, where even such discussion, as I know very well from my experience, would be unthinkable. I believe his stance is obviously ridiculous and his action is so obviously disruptive and unproductive, that i only have to thank him for initiating this thread.Axxxion (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Naturally, I do not mind Peacemaker (or any one else) making references consistent in style as he sees appropriate, but clearly that is not what he wants. He just massively deletes perfectly legitimate sourced material (in the last round of deletions he deleted the whole section completely - [24]). The impression one gets is that such edits seek to achieve one′s ownership of the article and keep it intact from any one else′s edits, apparently using it as a fetish to boost one′s traumatised ego.Axxxion (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

In view of the above said, I see it imperative that @Peacemaker67: should be barred from editing this article. And his administrator′s status should be reviewed as well.Axxxion (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion, Peacemaker offered you help formatting the references here and you didn't take it. Why? Peacemaker has a great deal of experience writing high-quality content, and exposure to their editing techniques can only help you improve your own skills. I simply don't understand why you wouldn't take advantage of their knowledge. Also, I highly doubt they will receive either a topic ban or have their admin tools removed as a result of this one report, so proposing that won't help your case. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, he is welcome to fix the problem if he sees one -- I don′t. I do see a problem with his obvious finding some fault or other with my edits: look at the preceding deletions there by him: quite obvious he does not like the material itself, and just looking for a pretext.Axxxion (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• If I may: The sudden insistence on sfn templates, especially in GAs and FAs and by those who seek to improve articles to those levels, is a real barrier to content improvement. It's caused me to walk away from more than one article I could have improved. Those templates are impenetrable, and even more than the older citation templates (which are used in their "harv" variant for the citation definitions), they produce an output that is just odd to many of us in the humanities. That said, Axxxion was in the wrong here in giving up on using the established format in a GA, and in this pair of refs they added: <ref name="kommersblack">[http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2297059 „Черная рука" в Кремле (Black Hand in Kremlin)], Игор Бухаркин, Комменсарть, 21.05.2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.promacedonia.org/en/kms/5.html Die „Schwarze Hand" schlägt zu]</ref> the first is a complete citation, but the second lacks necessary information. Peacemaker67 should have gritted their teeth and either formatted the citations to match, or left the article for a few days to see whether some wikignome would come along to do so, rather than removing what they admit are valid edits. The IP is right, the citation format is subordinate to content, even in a GA. NODEADLINE applies, although it's best not to leave the article with a mixed citation style for too long. But Axxxion didn't give sufficient information in one of those references, and that's imposing an unjustifiable burden on other editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, thanks indeed for raising pertinent issues: quite frankly it is all beyond my ken and i just do not want to waste time on fixing a problem that does not really exist (See also my post just above). AND - Yes, ″this pair of refs they added″ - in fact three, which long pre-date my edits: that did not trouble Peacemaker until now: See ″Development of the coup″ section, a cluster of refs at end of 2nd para.Axxxion (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Another peanut gallery comment: If the edits are well-supported with verifiable sources and otherwise comply with WP:CCPOL, then complaints about how those sources are cited strikes me as navel-gazing concern with process over product. The reference to WP:CITEVAR in the OP here is also a bit of a double-edged sword: ...editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike. The preference for a consistent citation style is merely that, a preference. Removing inconsistent cites and insisting on their being fixed to the remover's satisfaction is arguably more disruptive than putting them in in the first place. The assumption that DR processes will be non-fruitful before even trying them equally short-sighted. All in all, this complaint does not seem ripe for ANI. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Apart from the additions at this particular article, I must say that I'm concerned about some of what I'm seeing from Axxxion. Above the comment I referenced earlier, they put "apparently using it as a fetish to boost one's traumatised ego", in reference to Peacemaker. Maybe I'm too sensitive, but I find this commentary completely unnecessary and over the line. When they say to comment on content, not the contributor, this is exactly what they are talking about. And then they call for Peacemaker to be topic-banned and possibly desysopped? After seeing that, I must say that I wouldn't blame Peacemaker if they didn't want to collaborate with somebody criticizing them like this. In addition, I don't understand why Axxxion would say "Sleep well and have nice dreams" to Peacemaker on the talk page of the article in question, or why they would use the phrase "beyond my ken" here (perhaps in response to this?). It would be great if someone could (at a minimum) warn Axxxion against making personal attacks and urge them to work in a more collegial manner. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with this and would ask that Axxxion avoid personalizing the issue, per Giants2008. But I'd also urge Peacemaker to relax about the formatting. To the extent possible we should edit with a song in our heart, rather than gritting our teeth (subject ourselves to wikistress). If an inconsequential thing like this gets you stressed, it's easiest to just leave it alone. The project won't die from it. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Clicking the "index" link at the bottom of the "Die „Schwarze Hand" schlägt zu" (The black hand strikes) page shows that it's a section of the 1959 book "Der König muss sterben" (the King must die) by Themistokles Papasissis, Berlin: Heinrich Bär, o.J.). Web search finds many references to this book, which is about the 1934 assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia. So maybe the footnote could be improved by mentioning the book explicitly, but it wasn't much of a mystery so imho the citation is mostly ok and wp:sofixit suffices. Fwiw, there appears to be an English edition of the book,[25] that might be useful for the article. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

By way of clarification: all those three refs at the end of the sentence containing mention of the Black Hand had been added long before I began editing that article and those refs did not cause any objections on the part of Peacemaker THEN (as can be seen from the diff i quoted above). I personally think that the mention of Black Hand is a bit contrived here and would rather have it deleted; but the link to Kommersant article contains valuable info on Simovich staying in Moscow for a fortnight shortly before the coup, which should be kept. Apropos my being personal, I actually tried to be impersonal by employing the pronoun ″one′s″ (if one reads my posts carefully). The feeling I referred to is understandable and common to many and perhaps all of us, who created an article and invested much of time and effort into it. But I do suggest that Peacemaker may have been personal in his attitude, as how else would one explain his raising this issue (that pre-dates my edits in the article) only after I began editing? The first minor incident we had was in the Russian Protective Corps article that contained an obvious factual mistake (about Shteifon′s death - See TalkPage there), while the source cited said sth entirely different. After some initial squabbling, the dispute there was settled in a reasonable manner. But already then, I got impression that Peacemaker tends to present a GA status of an article as an infallibility certificate, whereas quite clearly no one took the trouble (when vetting the article) to check the baseline facts. Axxxion (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Behavioral issues aside, I agree with Yngvadottir, the use of sfn can be offputting to an editor who wishes to either add new content or in particular copy sourced material from an article that doesn't use sfn to one that does. It isn't easy to do and I also have just given up at in the past as I simply didn't have time. Being more or less required for GA or FA is an imposition on the average editor who relies on the citation templates in the toolbar. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • While I can't speak for FAC, for 'tis an undiscovered country from which no traveler returns, if people are requiring these to pass GANs then {{trout}}s need to start being handed out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but I see absolutely no problem with editors adding valid information to an article in which sfn is the current consistent referencing style, but not using sfn to reference the new information. As others have said above, as long as the ref is a valid one, and shows up in the notes, it's all good. I also see no problem with other editors taking that reference and converting it to sfn in order to maintain the consistent style, whether they're doing so for a GA or an FA or not. Like the Bushranger, I don't believe that sfn should be required to pass those standards, although a consistent style of any kind would be good. (And to note: I do not find the sfn style difficult to understand or use.)
      I have a particular referencing preference which seems natural to me, but I try to use sfn or cite templates if those seem to be consistently used throughout an article I'm editing - other referencing styles I'm not so familiar with. But, again, it's the content that matters, and the existence of a reference, not so much how it is expressed. (Except that I cordially dislike in-line external links, although I do use them occasionally, depending on circumstances) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:ELPOINTS #2 applies to those. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where the idea that sfn is required for FAC came in. There is no requirement for any citation style at FAC other than it be consistent within the article. None of the FAs I've worked on use sfn - they all use a system normally found in history texts. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Ealdgyth is right, everyone. None of the content processes even require citation templates. If you can format references well without the templates, more power to you. However, we do expect the citations to be formatted consistently, and that complete information be provided. Several of the references in the disputed content don't even have publishers listed. I can't speak to how GAN would handle such formatting, but the article wouldn't be able to pass FAC in that state. Reviewers would probably recommend that the references be converted to sfn, but only for the sake of consistency. If sfn wasn't being using, the reviewers wouldn't insist on it, and even if one did it wouldn't be actionable. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks you two for clearing that up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Willweinbach

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

I'm really baffled here. Can anyone explain how the recent edits shown in this user's contributions were able to be done? This user doesn't even appear to be auto confirmed, much less have page mover rights. I do not understand how this was even possible. I'll leave the issue of the blatantly self promotional article and what to do about it to the community by posting it here, but the bigger question of what to do about the how it could happen remains. John from Idegon (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What are you asking? If you're asking how someone can create a draft article, anyone can do that. See Wikipedia:Drafts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe the question is how they moved the draft to articlespace without the pagemover right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

He is autoconfirmed. If you look above the checklist on Special:UserRights, for him it says "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users". Pagemover isn't required for page moves to main, only autoconfirmed. PM only gives you the right to suppress redirects and move subpages as a stack. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If you look to the deletion log between 5:04 and 5:06 UTC 6 December (My options are set to display local times and I'm kinda sketchy on time conversation - it's 5 December 23:04-06 US MST on my view), he deleted a redirect page in mainspace and the associated talk page to make the move. Is that something any editor can do? I'm honestly confused here. I did not think it was, and if it is I sure don't think it should be.

On the subject of the editor himself, I think it's fairly clear this is a PROMO/NOTHERE situation and that he should be blocked. John from Idegon (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon If a redirect only has one edit, then it can be moved over. This makes sense, because otherwise a move by an autoconfirmed user can only be undone by someone with page mover right. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm hoping this has gotten the title on some more watch lists and we can lend the self promoting fella some WP:ROPE. Feel free to close this. John from Idegon (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

page hijacked (Pleše became TreeHouse Ltd)

The page Pleše was hijacked by Ystaea to create a promotional page for a (by the looks of it) non-notable private company. I've restored the content, but cannot move the page back. Can some friendly neighbourhood admin please assist? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not the first time I've seen this happen since the ACTRIAL.  Fixed -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Same for me... Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's two more CU confirmed socks to clean up after: Regsut Smar (talk · contribs · block log) and JRabeni (talk · contribs · block log) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Now you bring it up. Same at Rapšach-->Evan M. Loomis. Kleuske (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ditto Vlčetínec--> Jason D. Ballard Kleuske (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Both now cleaned up. A previous account was Gleopak (talk · contribs · block log). If anyone sees or knows of any more of this I'd be happy to take a look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

One more: Světce --> Tomorrow Lab by Rmleien. Kleuske (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I knew I recognised this behaviour. A bit of digging unearthed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#Hijacked dab page Kaisermühlen. Looks like the sockmaster is User:Highstakes00. --bonadea contributions talk 17:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've spent some time going through various Czech villages and towns, but found no more examples. Still, I have the creeping suspicion more hijacked articles exists and my search was not exhaustive. Kleuske (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Should new editors be blocked from moving articles? It seems to be a big right to give new users with no editing history, and is a big hole in the encyclopedia's security. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

That might be a worthy discussion to have, as I can see some support for it, though if we were to have one, it should be held elsewhere, not at ANI. SkyWarrior 21:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-autoconfirmed users do not have (and never had) the ability to move articles, so ACTRIAL shouldn't have an impact on hijacking. Unless of course they don't realize that we unpatrol moved pages... – Train2104 (t • c) 00:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

According to this, the user name used to create this article has 10 edits, and was created on Nov. 22nd.[[26]] The fifth edit was a move.[[27]] Am I missing something? The whole point of this is to bypass NPP. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

They had deleted contributions before the move, and were autoconfirmed when they made it. This isn't an ACTRIAL thing so much as a fool NPP thing. This has been a common tactic for a while with page moves. The focus used to be on disambiguation pages, but now it seems to be on obscure towns. Nothing new under the sun. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Potentially dumb question: Do we unpatrol pages that have been moved as suggested above? I know we do when an article is converted to/from a redirect. If we do unpatrol moved pages, there isn't any problem here, as they won't be able to use this technique to bypass NPP. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a phabractor task somewhere that was requested after consensus at one of the village pumps in the Spring. I don't have much hope it will be implemented any time soon, but there is an open task for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's the same company doing it persistently, an edit filter could help. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from the congress IP

Today, an anonymous editor has disruptively edited pages Bears Ears National Monument and Knights Templar leaving rather inappropriate messages such as ...all sexual harassers in congress should resign... and other. This has been reflected on the https://twitter.com/congressedits bot page. This user is most likely trying to troll the bot, as he realized, that anything he does from the IP is going to go on Twitter. I believe the user should be blocked, as their actions compromise th bot. The editor also threatened to go to other IP addresses, in case they are blocked. Diffs - Knights Templar and Bears Ears National Monument - Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 17:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It honestly looks like garden-variety vandalism/trolling. I did send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee in the event a block might be warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I second this motion to block. The troll also accused a Nintendo character of starting ISIS. Mannydantyla (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No edits for two hours - no need to block -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Different IP, same prefix. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

SPA IP and British and Irish/Irish and British

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

---

A Single purpose IP editor, 176.61.55.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is wholesale changing the words "British and Irish" to "Irish and British", on the grouds that his version is correct. In the process he has damaged one citation, and introduced a spurious "British Republican government". I have tried talking to him on his talk page, but feel that I am getting nowhere. I am also aware that there is an ArbCom ruling in place for Troubles related articles. Please could some admins with both a better grasp of the niceties of WP policies etc in this area, and more patience, than I have, take a look at this? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already apologized for the erroneous edits that broke things. I am happy to fix them. I stand by my edits that Irish / Ireland as the majority is correct. 176.61.55.135 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP has already been asked to abide by BRD and seek consensus for their disputed and contested edits all reverted by at least 3 editors so far: DuncanHill, myself and @GoodDay:. Counter argument to their flawed defense was provided and what I got in return was "NI is part of Ireland" (it is actually part of the UK), which shows they are clearly politically motivated with this swapping of terms. They were notified at their talk page that continuing on would constitute edit-warring and may result in a block. This advice they have ignored. Almost all of their edits simply involves this swapping of terms. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hold on a second - "[NI] is actually part of the UK", WP:NPOV anyone? That's a contentious position to state, at best. The entity called "Northern Ireland" is part of Ireland. That part of the island of Ireland may presently be under the administration of the United Kingdom, but it doesn't change the fact that it is absolutely part of Ireland. khavakoz

I don't see what the problem is. If you all are so offended, revert my changes and we'll call it a day. However, "Coins of Ireland", "The Emergency" and "Parliament of Ireland" are 100% correct. 176.61.55.135 (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to get blocked, that's your choice. Otherwise, leave'em as British and Irish. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Why? Where is the Editorial Decision pertaining to the specific matter at hand? When was this ordering decided? Where's your WP:CITE?khavakoz

Thanks for reverting all my edits. I 100% disagree with your unilateral decision to revert edits made in good faith and request that you undo your reverts of my edits. The wiki admins have not given guidance on this request so I am aghast that you would "take the law"into your own hands whilst awaiting a decision from an admin 176.61.55.135 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that admins do not make content decisions - those are made by editors via discussion. Admins can only address behavioural issues. What that means is that any editor is allowed to revert your changes, and then you need to seek a consensus through discussion to reinstate them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

So, where is this Editorial Decision?khavakoz

Irish coins... seriously? Are you that petty? 176.61.55.135 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently you are. Please read the article in full, particularly this part - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coins_of_Ireland#Coins_of_the_Irish_Free_State,_then_Ireland/Éire . Note that "Irish and British coinage were mutually acceptable..." comes BEFORE your reverted edit. I repeat myself, the correct term - even shown earlier in this article - is "Irish and British". 176.61.55.135 (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Enough. You made changes, they got reverted. Now you discuss them on the talk pages and don't change it again UNTIL you have consensus for the change. Period. --Tarage (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Apparently it was necessary to change "British and Irish government leaders" to "Irish and British government leaders" in the context of the Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations (because "Irish majority"?) Er, the negotiations took place in Britain. There was no "majority." Should 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' be moved to 'Irish-British Treaty' because it mostly affected Ireland? Of all the petty nationalist/unionist edit wars I've seen over the years, this current crusade takes the biscuit... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that Niaodh, might be the IP under an account name. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I share that suspicion. I left a note. Acroterion (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

217.22.158.148 appears questionable as well. Article may need semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Sarah Rogers

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

---

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

---

Sarah Rogers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please revoke talk page access; it's just being used for more promotional edits. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

@TonyBallioni:, you might consider a revdel of their edits on their talk page as it is basically a copy paste from the web www.jonpauldenaro.com, where it says at the bottom that "all rights reserved", etc, etc. Blackmane (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I've done that - let me know if I missed any. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed ability to email. And blocked one of their socks User:Jon Paul Denaro Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Strange behaviour by Dzmzh

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

---

Dzmzh is blanking their own article, Picnic_(online_supermarket), with "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" as an edit summary and moved it back to draftspace with the reason of 'no one loves me any more'. I'm not sure what's happening on their side, but it is disruptive, and it's not their property, now that it is an article. !dave 13:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice to hear their input, but from what I can see there's nothing major going on here. I'll keep an eye on the page, move-protect it if I have to, and 3RR Dzmzh if they keep up with the DE. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Restoration of article about Vestarctic

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

---

secondary sources on this topic: [28][29], [30], pages № 2008, 2009 and 2010 and pages 516-517, 6 books, page 730-731 - even Class 15: Private Mint Issues since 1960 -- American Numismatic Association (for all numismatic material issued by a private mint of any country, including philatelic-numismatic covers, except that no denominated coins may be exhibited in this class) First Place -- Oded Paz for "The Coins of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica", 9 news - example Members included HRH Grand Duke Travis McHenry, the leader of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica, who in 2001 took command of an unclaimed chunk of Antarctica, and Travis McHenry, the grand duke of Westartica, will also be in attendance at MicroCon 2015. Westarctica is a much larger nation than Molossia, with more than 620,000 square miles in Antarctica to its name. None of the nation's 300 citizens live on the frozen land. No one does. McHenry, also a recruiting coordinator in a Los Angeles media company, said he was 'really inspired' when he found out there was a piece of Antarctica that had never been claimed. But Westarctica is not just an empty country. It's also a nonprofit, advocating for the protection of native penguins and researching how climate change is impacting Antarctica's ice sheet. ... Grand Duchy of Westarctica. One of the world's largest micronations, it encompasses 620,000 square miles of the Antarctic, but nobody actually lives there. It was founded in 2001 by His Royal Highness Grand Duke Travis McHenry after he learned no other nation had laid claim to the area. McHenry says he would like to eventually make Westarctica a real country. If he does, he jokes that he'll probably promote himself from grand duke to king., Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations The book's profile of micronations offer information on their flags, leaders, currencies, date of foundation, maps and other facts. Micronations featured in the book include: .... Westarctica and [31]. Based on these sources, I'm asking you to restore a separate article on this topic as significant on the Wikipedia:Notability. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy close- we had an AfD with consensus to delete, and the deletion review was a unanimous endorse. Reyk _YO! 14:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There was no unanimity, and the administrator's decision was wrong. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeing this, this, and this, I would highly suggest that you drop the stick now. This is bordering on disruption, and might lead to a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• OP blocked. This is the third or fourth venue they've pasted this same shopping list of references into, in each one having already been told not to do it again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

To be fair to the OP, his post at WP:AE was directed to WP:AN or WP:ANI on closure, and his posts at those two boards were three minutes apart. A block purely on those grounds seems harsh.Gricehead (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocking isn't about punishment but to prevent ongoing disruption. OP was obviously going to continue spamming this at numerous other venues. Reyk _YO! 14:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What Reyk said. Spamming multiple noticeboards with the same already-declined request is purely disruptive. (The first was at a DRV which closed with unanimous endorsement of the article's deletion.) It's clear from their actions and comments after that that they intend to continue being disruptive, and for that they can take a short break. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Sergio Haziq

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

[32] Lots of disruptive editing. I recently spotted them when looking at the history of Rafael Coelho, which also features similar disruption by other accounts and IPs.2001:A61:370B:2E01:C43C:F690:D11B:206 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Goo3

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

---

Goo3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please! He came from Ukarainian Wikipedia, user Goo3 harms and conducts illegally in relation to this public person Anatoly_Shariy, and also he leads edits wars, as in the English version, and in the Ukrainian! Block him from this harasmetn! -- Westmclaren 18:00 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, his edits are fine. YOU, on the other hand, are edit warring. You have not discussed it with him, you refuse to back down and this ANI is a prime example of a WP:BOOMERANG. Withdraw your accusation or I guarantee this will not go well for you. :I fancy this deserves a WikiTrout. :TomBarker23 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This person, Goo3, has warnings in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, he intentionally immediately deletes information, without explanation, any discussions are useless. He has a personal dislike for this public figure. -- Westmclaren 18:35 December 2017 (UTC)

I sent this situation to PUBLIC PERSON - and here is answer... https://www.facebook.com/anatolijsharij/posts/10215290603926802

Hope one day, they will stand in cort for their lies, wikipedia knows examples -- Westmclaren 18:40 December 2017 (UTC)

Was that a legal threat? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Westmclaren:, there is a bright orange notice at the top of your browser window every time you edit this page that says in huge letters: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I note you have omitted this in this case and have taken the liberty of notifying them for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi colleagues. The invitation to European Journalist Foundation, which user claims to, is not proved by any of sources. The only source is this one (in Russian) which cites the Anatoliy's facebook post. So I suggest this information shouldn't be there until it's proved by reliable sources.

The person was already blocked once in Ukrainian Wiki and currently we're discussing the possible sanctions for violating Wiki's rules. I'm here to answer your questions and thank you for your time. --Goo3 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

For those, who can't read Ukrainian, I would advise to use google translate, because this user is lying! He has admin instruments and illegally has blocked me in Ukrainian Wikipedia, and he has got WARNING from other admins! Here is the link, I'm not lying - he is sick! >> and here, you may watch his war edits, >> through which he also received warnings, all this applies to the same public person. He probably performs the paid order. -- Westmclaren 19:07 December 2017 (UTC)

• Westmclaren, you can not use his Facebook account as a source for information on the English Wikipedia. We don't care about what happens on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, not in the least. Right now, you have called him "sick" a "spammer" twice, and I'm trying to figure out why I haven't blocked you for being a disruptive editor yet. I may still. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  I was just thinking exactly the same - Westmclaren, stop the personal attacks *now*. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  I followed the ref1 link and used Google Translate, as advised. It didn't exactly help Westmclaren's position... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  I did the same and came to the same conclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  Me three. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm... it's actually slightly more interesting it seems. Looks like the user has managed to get indeffed on de.wiki in all of 36 edits, gotten three different blocks on ru.wiki in all of 86 edits, and in addition to the two blocks they've gotten on uk.wiki. All appear to be related to this Shariy fellow. So, yeah. I'm sure this will end well. GMG^talk 18:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, my apologies for sik, but, this information from the source, not just a link to Facebook. The information was published by a reliable, by verified site, of course, this is not CNN, but the source. For your own interest, look at the article, which user Goo3 created, exclusively according to the client's information, from the Facebook profile and YouTube channel of the client. >> -- Westmclaren 19:22 December 2017 (UTC)

You aren't providing any information, you are just making claims. I have left a final warning on your user page. You make it impossible to consider the conduct of someone else when your own conduct is so poor: calling names, forum shopping and the like. Either comform to the expectations of the English Wikipedia or expect to be blocked. We have little patience for personal attacks here. As I said on your page, this is not the Ukrainian Wikipedia, I have no idea what their rules are, don't really care. We have our own and you are clearly violating them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'll just add that this is essentially a content disagreement over whether a claim in the article is adequately sourced, and that needs to be resolved by discussion at Talk:Anatoly Shariy - where I see precisely no discussion on the subject whatsoever. That should be your first venue, Westmclaren, not posting complaints and personal attacks in multiple places - and discussion there should be civil. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• I think time is up for this editor. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

There were links! Wanna know who is that user, read, how many times he was breaking WIKI law, and admins simply ignored him! >>>. I'm not vandal or spammer. -- Westmclaren 19:42 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indef for disruptive editing. Anybody object? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I'm wondering if a global block might need to be in place at this point, with their disruption over 4 wikis (EN, DE, RU, UK). RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No objection here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm wondering WP:CIR is a factor as well. Regardless, I had no hope the editor would gain enough clue to actually be a useful contributor. I have no objections to the block or a global block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion. The links they posted to uk.wiki as "proof" of Goo3's supposed bad behavior only showed that Westmclaren has a long-standing cross-wiki grudge and can't be bothered to substantiate their complaints in any language. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And I filed a global block request here: [33]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Good call, especially as Westmclaren has just been blocked for the third time on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but by Goo3 every time. I'd like to see a little more variety before using that as an example. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, Goo's only a sysop on one project, and they've never so much as touched de.wiki. So, there's that. GMG^talk 19:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

One look at their talk page at the Ukrainian Wikipedia makes it pretty clear there are CIR issues going on. Yes, Goo3 blocked them, but that isn't the source of their problems, their wounds are self-inflicted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

On top of 3 blocks at ru.wiki and indef ones at de.wiki and now here, I think what we're seeing is pretty conclusive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: The OP had been globally blocked, this ANI properly can be close. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

References

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

Civility and insults made by User:Nightscream

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

User:Nightscream and I got into a bit of an edit war (mistakes were admittedly made on both of our parts) on the article Splatty Tomato. I admitted to the mistakes that I had made and apologized for such on my talk page and instead of being civil, Nightscream decides to continue the personal attacks on me. His statements to me on my talk page is something I don't believe that any editor should have to put up with and IMO are blatant violations of WP:CIVIL. Please review the statements made on my talk page, specifically the ones at User talk:SanAnMan#Splatty Tomato. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting frustrated with repeated instances of subpar prose is one thing, but the way he condescended your work (i.e. "nor am I writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing" and "All you're doing by fighting me ensuring the same illiterate, incoherently written gibberish of hit-or-miss clarity that tends to pass for content") was definitely unwarranted and out of line. For what it's worth, he did at least apologize for his tone, which is much better than showing no remorse at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: That apology looked to be tongue-in-cheek to me, did you not see his closing statement "But in the mean time, feel free to waste your time replacing good, clear writing with grammatically incoherent sentences, redundant add-ons, and passages of unclear meaning to the uninitiated reader, all the while employing logical fallacies to justify doing so, if you prefer." This isn't an apology, it's still an attack. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Actions by User:Ckruschke may be in breach of WP:OWN

• Ckruschke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• O Holy Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Ckruschke has reverted several good additions to O Holy Night on the basis that "it is not meant to be added to". This is a ridiculous premise in direct opposition to the whole idea of expanding an encyclopaedia. I consider his/her actions to breach both WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The relevant diffs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. May we please have an administrative decision on the current status of the article, subject to any citations being needed. Thank you. CravinChillies 17:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think their edit summary is silly. As for citations, well, that list is terrible of course. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Constructal law

• Talk:Constructal law

Are all the recent comments here posted by the same person? I don't know if this "coincidence" is enough to open a sock investigation, but it seems pretty suspicious to me. Natureium (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Have you checked to see if those folks have edited the article, or other (related) articles? Perhaps it's a school project. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• The article creator claims to be a professor in Brazil. That is not where those talk page and AfD commenters seem to be editing from (far from it), though I haven't checked all of them. I checked a few and found only one account that had also created another, but that one hasn't edited. It is possible that there is an orchestrated effort, of course, but I think it's safe to just let the AfD ride: the discerning admin who closes it will know what to do. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User Jobas is requesting a Standard Offer

Jobas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

There is a request for a Standard offer by user:Jobas. The original blocking admin has expressed (via email) their agreement with a conditional unblock. However there is an objection and so I am requesting additional input. In order to allow Jobas to respond I am going to ask that comments and questions be made on his talk page. Unless there is a very quick and clear consensus I will not take any action regarding the unblock request for at least two days in order to allow for interested parties to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Standard Offer User:Jobas has done some fantastic work on religion-related articles, such as creating the Christian culture and Christian attitudes towards science articles, in addition to expanding existing articles, such as the one about Religion in Asia. Moreover, User:Jobas is from the minority Palestinian Christian community and I feel that this unique and underrepresented background is a valuable addition to the various backgrounds of other Wikipedia editors. He already effectively endured a topic ban with his six-month block from editing Wikipedia completely and the nature of the block was to address his first and only issue of sockpuppetry, rather than the content of his edits. I would suggest that any further violations of Wikipedia's policy with respect to sockpuppetry should result in another block of a longer duration. Keeping in mind these facts, as well as User:Jobas' ten year investment in the project and relatively clean block log during this time, a six-month to one year 1RR restriction is the solution at this time, in my humble opinion. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support: I'm sympathetic to the concerns stemming from the conduct that led up to the block, but I don't see it as being sufficiently severe to merit rejecting what's otherwise a reasonable SO request. He's agreed to some pretty significant editing restrictions as part of lifting the block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)