Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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. 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

Austrian Empire

Could I get a few more editors experienced in Austrian-Hungarian history to look at the edit war that has erupted in Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)? I have full-protected both articles after extensive reverting by a number of people - there is a lively discussion on the talk page but it's being plagued by personal attacks thrown around, which makes it difficult for me to call a consensus. Note: I haven't pinged anybody to this discussion as I'm commenting on the overall conduct rather than any specific editor - please advise if I should Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Essentially Von Hebel is correct. Franz formally incorporated the Kingdom of Hungary into the Austrian Empire when Lazlo states he did (its a bit more complicated than that but Hebel's last post on the Kingdom of Hungary talkpage provides the most accurate explanation.) From what I can see the other parties are mis-construing the sources due to the sentence/syntax when translated. In context however Lazlo is unambiguous. The 'personal attacks' seem to be linked to this mis-understanding of the sources, which unfortunately is a common occurance when dealing with non-english RS'. There also seems to be a whiff of pro-Hungarian nationalism - including the KoH as part of the AE lessens it in some manner etc. If you want to call a consensus, you either need more eyes to interpret the source, or no-consensus it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

While I am not an expert on this subject matter, I will state for the record that I agree with Ritchie333's full protection of the articles (if that helps at all). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User Only in death does duty end, I have to heavily oppose your early statement! I urge you to read the further discussion since Hebel's explanation and argumentation was disproved more times since then. I have to oppose also in the name of "other parties", becase we support to really insert uncut the source that Hebel does not support, he want's to spare the most important word from it. We have no problem with the interpretation - moreover Hungarian history experts joined the discussion - if you state that "Laszlo is unambigous", then you cannot tell Hebel has right...I have to also reject the charge of "pro-Hungarian nationalism", this is mostly used against the Hungarians or against everyone who does not support those obvious bias' that we notice. The editors participated in the discussion has zero influence on nationality or any nationalistic aim, just the pure historical facts and accuracy are concerned, that are so many times enquestioned and attacked regarding Hungary. The article was pretty good and stable for so many years, now 90% of the top important Hungary related content and section was deleted, and the citation does not represent the true content and meaning of the source that is on the edge of the debate!

I urge Administrator's also with lawyer/jurisdiction or concrete mathematics/inference theory relation to join and read the correspondent talk pages since we cannot put blindly deficient citations losing their real meaning or to avoid average thinking and just to put and alter anything so long we clearly do not cross some technical rules of editing, I mention this since also the validity of my inference was attacked, alhough it should be obvious, not even a University Degree is neccesary to understand that! Good faith and the struggle for factuality and valid content cannot be compromised! Also please check my advice for consensus, since it contains the claimed deletion of a sentence and the the corresponding source's quotation unaltered, next to the former content that does not contradict anything. Moreover a new addition - not our edit - was also worked in those version. It is a pretty generous offer since non of our advices, not even a sub-part was accepted, that is not proving me the real sought for consensus!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC))

Basically the Kingdom of Hungary, was caught up in a personal union that became an informal composite monarchy, the Habsburg Monarchy. It officially became a part of the Empire of Austria in 1804 when the former informal composite monarchy was reorganized in an Imperial State comprising many lands that kept the privileges they had enjoyed before. We can have different opinions about how much those privileges were worth under Habsburg rule, but still they were there especially for Hungary that, when it concerned matters Hungarian, was theoretically ruled by it's King and Diet rather than by the overarching Emperor. It has occurred to me since a couple of years that some people are in denial of the fact that Hungary was included in that Imperial State from 1804 to 1848. While Imperial institutions had nothing to say about matters Hungarian, the very idea that Hungary was not a fully sovereign state in that period seems to be so obnoxious to some, that they are looking for rationalizations about how the country was not a part of the overarching Imperial state. But basically, those are not in the books. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, why you think the administrators or other participants does not read the corresponding talk pages? Hungary DID NOT BECAME OFFICIALLY the part of the Austrian Empire, as even the source you are pushing is proving that. You ruined all the related articles with your fixa idea, but you could not present any proof, moreover, you systematically remove all other contents proving the divison and you play with words and hinder important information! What you call "theoretically" is just your POW, the are the legal status and laws that only counts! Also "what is in the books" is just a groundless claim, as "seeking for rationalization". Hungarians are fed up of corruption attempts of their history. Since the source speaks about a strictly FORMAL inclusion by an ASSUMPTION, at the same time it clearly stated not any legal terms or affiliations were changed, Article X remained as well in action thus Hungary remained, as it was a Regnum Independens, a separate country. The fact the King of Hungary also rendered the Emperor of Austria title, did not change anything. I have demonsrated more times your argumentation being illogic, contradictive, unfair, non-factual. About sovereignity, de facto sovereignity is always differs from de jure sovereignity, as it is also today. Many countries had a ruler from a foreign House, or by changed titles, but it did not necessarily affected them. You have no chance to distract the Administrators, you will see!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC))

I've made another proposal at the talkpage of Austrian Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked and answered there. Because of two major inaccuracy the proposal had to be denied.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

I have to clarify articles on dispute has arisen to three - all of them should be discussed in this section since the root of the problem is the same, the main discussion isongoing still in the Austrian Empire - Talk page: Hungary section - Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867, Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. The latter I did not remove any former addition I just expanded two added sources to have unambigous clear meaning, and a section was added with a modified content, the earlier version were long years present until the same problems arisen near May-summer when the drastic an inacceptable alteration of these pages took part. I did not see any consensus on that page, still I get accusations. Anyway I urge every administrators to check those edits, just to have a clear view how destructive could be to hinder the source's original content and how misleading would be the result. Also it has a clear sight remeving entire sections on fake grounds just to hinder a lawful situation of the subject. I recommend it to everyone, and I ask a protection for the page since my factual and good faith edit's are removed or reverted, also the protecion is asked to conserve my contributions, since it is a great chance to compare it with the similar content of the other two articles - where the disputed edits remanined unharmed until resolution - so non-experts can also see the difference and to understand more the root of the problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC))

The conflict is now spilling over to the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 page where User:KIENGIR is now partly reintroducing text that was removed in May (by consensus). We're not getting anywhere this way. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You refer on a "consensus" that is not present on the talk page and I have never seen, anyway it is already abolished. But what kind of "consensus" is that you make with one IP Address? I reached formerly consensus together with Administrator's, and members/representives from the corresponding country/nationality the article involved or connected to, this is a real consensus! Anyway, you added also some modifications to the article that I did not reverted or modified with a good faith, I want to really ask the Administrators how is that possible such a double measure? Like Hebel would be the authorized boss of Hungary related articles who can decide what is "consensus" or what brakes consensus...his edits are always "fair", if he does not like other edits, already there is a conflict...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC))

Based on an RFPP request, I've fully locked Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (and have already been admonished for protecting The Wrong Version) and I've placed a 1RR restriction on the page when consensus is reached or protection expires. Since Hebel had not received the discretionary sanctions alert for WP:ARBEURO, I gave it to him. As far as I'm concerned, this dispute falls under ARBEURO, even if it's along the edges. Let's treat it that way. Katie^talk 01:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Katie, I had already seen that discretionary sanctions were a possibility.

There are basically four things bothering me about this question

a)That words like “formally”, “lawful” and “legal” are used in a way that strangely indicate things that are not in the dictionaries for them.

b)That, as a consequence of a) the article, according to USER:KIENGIR is supposed to say in one paragraph that Hungary is a part of the Empire of Austria (as the sources indeed clearly indicate), while some paragraphs later the exact opposite is stated. Which is inconsistent and OR, because it is based on editor interpretation of legal text

c)That some sourced text for the situation describing the composite monarchy (pre 1804), keeps cropping up in descriptions of the post 1804 situation.

d)Copyvio issues.

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all the articles has no connection to Eastern Europe, only Central Europe.

a) No way, everything is clearly explained in the talk pages

b) No way, this has been many times clarified, only you are the one who does not understand, how dare you to mislead Katie? I never said "Hungary is part of Empire of Austria" (as the sources clearly indicate it is just a formal membership by assumption), in other pharagraphs the lawful affiliations are mentioned, later the details while Hungary's famous status was different like other Crownland's. It is not inconsistent, not more than 90 IQ is enough to understand my professional coherent argumentation. It is based on the source's text.

c) No way, since no relations changed between Austria and Hungary after 1804, so everything is valid, anyway the corresponding source speaks clearly after 1804. The section with detailed information of course contains some earlier descriptions to demonstrate the special status, but they remained still valid after, so they are not outdated information.

d) No way, just another casus belli to avoid detailed and professional information on a bit complex situation, that is average in Wikipedia is similar cases/relations.

Is there any sanction if an editor openly distracts an Administrator? Since the cessation all of the statements Hebel made are clearly demonstrated and can be read on the talk pages. What a shame!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC))

Page move and gaming the system

User:Nymf has gamed the system in a redirect "purposely" so a page move cannot be done. After 8 years I would think he would know this is against the rules of wikipedia. The gaming article in question is Malin Akerman. The proof that it was on purpose and that he will do the same again is Nymf's talk page. The background is the following. I had asked an administrator to delete the original "Malin Akerman" redirect article because someone had made it impossible to move "Malin Åkerman." This was done. This seemed like a no-brainer move like Martina Navratilova. Nothing on the talk page on moves in 5-6 years, actress lived whole life in North America, actress self-identifies with Akerman spelling in personal correspondence, and signature, etc... so the move was made.

It was moved back by Nymf with a summary of "per talk page RM request". I thought maybe I missed a new post on the talk page so I went back to check. Nothing, so the summary was bogus. Because it was bogus I checked Nymf's edits and saw he gamed the system by making it impossible to move back without another administrator visit. I told him as much on his talk page but he seemed defiant which told me he will do this again and again (and who knows how many times he's done this in 8 years). It still seems routine to me, but obviously this is a dispute I will now have to take to the Talk:Malin Åkerman page. I have no problem with his revert, but Nymf must be warned by someone official never to do this type of gaming thing again. I've seen many a block for this in my years but an official warning will hopefully suffice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an old RM request that resulted in no consensus. On the talk page. Nymf probably intended to tell you that he doesn't want that move because of reasons mentioned in the old RM(Nymf partipiciated in it). It is definitely controversial to move, no matter what you think- there was a NC page move five years ago, and your bold move was opposed. Do a RM, and seek consensus. Sure, Nymf's reasoning was unclear, but please assume more good faith next time. I will talk with Nymf about his behaviour on his own talk page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That might have justified moving it back, but the edit to the resulting redirect was clearly an attempt to game the system by making it harder for his action to be reversed, which is definitely against the rules. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was no legitimate reason for this edit. If an edit subsequent to a move added redirect categories or something, that would be one thing, but removing whitespace that doesn't have any bearing on the article appearance is a clear sign of wanting to prevent a page move. Doing it to prevent an edit war is assuming bad faith given that there's no indication there would be multiple reverts. Anyways, per WP:BRD, the next step would simply be a move discussion on the talk page, since the last one was five years ago and closed as "no consensus". clpo13_(talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The only good faith explanation for this edit was that it was accidental, but Nymf's comment make it clear it was intentional. Warnings and/or sanctions are appropriate. NE Ent 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The littlecircle can't be used in Canada where this person lives so even if the subject likes it, they would have trouble using it on documents. Both editors are being foolish spending time on this. Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: - The little circle can't be used in Canada... - Do you have a source to verify that? - ^theWOLFchild 05:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the experience of many of my friends (Chinese, Indian, Ukrainian etc) that you can't get any ID with non-English or French languages on it. I went looking for written rule, which surely exists, but could not find it. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That might help and will be something that will be brought up when I form a proper RM (where I want to make sure the sourcing is neat and tidy). This is only about gaming the system, purposely. I asked Nymf to fix the situation so this an/i would never see the light of day, and the response was "Go ahead." So here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The MOS clearly allows provision for diacritics but as Nymf has pointed it, it's (apparently, I don't know much) a different letter altogether. I say, that the reasoning behind not moving the page was perfectly fine but gaming the system, to make it much harder to move it, was unjustified. And, WQA to the accused, please. Akerman's referred to by the media as Akerman, only because it's easier but since she doesn't bother to use that little circle (I don't know what to call it, sorry) on her social accounts, I'd say the OP's stance is the one I'm going to lean to. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Just making sure that the warning given by editor Müdigkeit is as official a warning as there's going to be? I don't want to see him saying "well it wasn't an administrator warning so I gave it no mind" in case it ever happens again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to wait for a statement. Nymf hasn't edited yet. Neither here nor somewhere else.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

By "impossible to move", do you mean that you can't enter the letter from your keyboard? Then use the HTML Unicode point value. It's Unicode Character 'LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH RING ABOVE' (U+00C5). Enter it as Å, and it'll display as Å. --Thnidu (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with cleanup

I came across the article for Smart Boys as an A7. It was a film so it didn't qualify for an A7, but a look showed that it was created by a sockpuppet of User:Gantlet, who was blocked in 2010 and was evading said block. A look at the article creation history for this sockpuppet (User:Rajeshbieee) shows a whopping 900+ pages. Many of these appear to be for barely notable films. This search engine is likely the best way to look.

Each of these pages need to be gone through and if they don't assert notability or have some glaring errors, be deleted as a page created by someone evading a block/ban. This will be a massive undertaking and I'd appreciate anyone that wants to help with searching and tagging. I'm not going to delete all of them without doing at least a cursory search for sourcing since some of them might pass GNG or some variation thereof. Still, the temptation to just delete them as creations by a sock is strong and I feel that the best way to avoid doing a massive, possible detrimental deletion would be to go through these one by one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Without yet looking at the articles, they should either be mass-deleted (assuming nobody touched them after the sock), or we need a coordination page similar to CCI pages, otherwise it will be a lot of time wasted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I brought this up at WP:INDIA and @Sitush: said the same thing. I figure that this is likely the easiest and possibly best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If its 900+ pages someone other than socks must have definitely edited them. I prefer a coordination page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, where would be the best place to coordinate this? -- samtar ^whisper 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does not really matter; For instance, WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've very basically put together blocks of ~50 articles to be checked - is this the best method of splitting the work? -- samtar ^whisper 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I though about asking a bot to add there all the titles (possibly split into blocks) and then posting individual progress. See how it is done at WP:CCI, e.g. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Proudbolsahye.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that would have been so much quicker D: feel free to do that Ymblanter and scrub my manual attempt :) -- samtar ^whisper 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a bot. Let us first see if someone could help us just seeing this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to ping you to AN/I @Cyberpower678: do you think you could assist with this given your bot expertise -- samtar ^whisper 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just run a quick Python script to generate a list of all the titles at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee; it's pretty basic, but it's on Wiki, rather than elsewhere. Feel free to revert if you want something with more detail. Harrias ^talk 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, Harrias could you modify your script to insert a line every 50 articles saying "Block x" (x=x+1) so it can be divvied up? -- samtar ^whisper 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We can do it manually I guess. Thanks Harrias--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Labs seems to have gone down, as it does intermittently, otherwise I'd be happy to run it again. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You've probably already done what you want to do here; but if not, you could use this tool. The output can be downloaded as wiki markup and pasted wherever you want it (that's how the CCI listings are generated). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think people should slow down here. While User:Gantlet was blocked in 2010, that was only a 35-day block, and had expired when most if not all of the articles involved were created. Gantlet wasn't blocked again until this month. Their recidivist socking apparently went undetected for too long, but that alone isn't grounds for summarily purging their contributions. G5 isn't retroactive, and I fear it looks like the articles need to be examined individually and taken through standard deletion processes as appropriate. Or have I missed something? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note that the deleted article Smart Boys was recreated by a new user Omkaaram. Whoever wants to pursue a SPI investigation, this is probably a good case. (The article itself has no issues).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is going to be a mess. I did a spot check of some of the items in the first 50 entries at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee. Maybe 75% of what I checked is definitely deletion-worthy. However some were not. Brianhe.public (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• I like the coordination page - I'll get started on some of these right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, Ymblanter, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz raises a good question about G5 eligibility. As the admins involved in this mess, how do you see this? If an article is problematic, should I G5, or send to AfD? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    I would say unless it is a brand new (clear block evasion) creation and does not fall under PROD/speedy criteria it should be sent to AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I have no true issue deleting these as G5, but I will hold off at this point since I do see some valid points brought up as to why G5 wouldn't entirely qualify here. I'd argue that we should give G5 a little wiggle room here since this will potentially mean hundreds of articles flooding AfD or PROD, which would be more time consuming than if we were to just G5 them as a sock creation. I'd say that this should only apply to articles that are obviously non-notable and cannot be redirected to a valid target like a director filmography. Anything that seems like it could potentially be notable (ie, two usable RS) should go through the other avenues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, AfD is usually overwhelmed with candidates as it is and we have a person here who has created 900+ articles. If even a fourth of that goes to AfD, that means that there will be over 200 articles going to AfD. Some of these articles are very quickly checked, so this could mean dozens of AfDs open within a short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm running across a new issue. One of the creations by the sockpuppet includes a year-by-year discography for a composer with 1000+ film credits. Many of those films do not appear to be immediately notable, so this means that these pages (spanning from 1976 to 2015) will likely require just as much in-depth inspection as the sock articles. Some of the film pages were created by the sock, but some weren't. I don't know that we need to have a complete discography for all of Ilaiyaraaja's work, even if we were to compile the pages by decade rather than by year. Thoughts on this? There's a merge request at Talk:Ilaiyaraaja discography, if anyone wants to give their input. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Ymblanter; after reading your thoughts, it seems to me that this would be a reasonable place to invoke WP:IAR, and tag non-notable creations of this author with G5, so as to avoid flooding PROD and AfD. Unless there are any serious objections to this, I will switch to doing that shortly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That strikes me as a very bad idea. IAR is rarely if ever validly invoked to justify out-of-process speedy deletion. And G5-ing articles that don't meet G5 requirements will be disruptive for editors reviewing those speedy nominations. If there's no issue about the factual accuracy of Ilaiyaraaja's credits, I don't see why the article needs to be scoured of non-notable items. We have many musician discographies which list nn albums/sinbles/songs, and many author bibliographies which list complete works, not merely those notable enough to have individual articles. Notability standards don't apply within articles, and one of the appropriate functions of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic and appropriately complete. Biographies don't mention only notable children, parents, and spouses, after all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Anjo-sozinho on Carlos I of Portugal and related articles

User:Anjo-sozinho has for, I believe some years now shown a pattern of disruptive editing on pages concerning the Portuguese monarchy, in which he furthers the claims of a woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter of King Carlos I and claiming to have been made an heir to the throne by him. Although these claims are highly doubtful, specially the last one. He has repeatedly insisted on adding information about this woman, who called herself Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança to various articles without consensus about whether the information was a) properly sourced and b) within the scope of the article at all. Most recently at: Carlos I of Portugal and earlier at House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. He also has caused considerable trouble on the pages of present members of the House of Braganza by deleting dynastic titles and moving the articles to names that omitted those, this because he apparently feels their claims should not be acknowledged. The articles involved were among others: Infante Miguel, Duke of Viseu, Infante Henrique, Duke of Coimbra, Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza, Maria Francisca of Orléans-Braganza, Duchess of Braganza. He must know that he has no consensus for the notability or the veracity of the claims made and he mostly refuses to seek it. There have been 3rr incidents in the past. His operations on these pages are one big exercise in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and frankly I don’t see his behaviour changing any time soon. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have placed an EW and a final DE warnings on their talk page. If they resume reverting, I would say to please refer to 3RR for a temporary solution in order to settle this and gain admin attention simultaneously . Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Callmemirela. The thing is that he is the one adding information and I am the one who is reverting, so I feel at a slight disadvantage. But I'll get over it :-). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hebel: No problem. I am currently monitoring the situation and will be inclined to revert if necessary. But so far they have rested, which is a good thing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Pseudohistory edits by anon user

Hi, all! Please review edits made recently by IPs

• 77.49.124.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.1.108.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.4.149.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.49.108.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.128.160.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.4.85.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

He/she might well be a sole person alternating his IP, focused on the same football club artcle (Panathinaikos F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and the continuous removal of a certain phrase, without presenting documentation or providing inadequate/offensive Edit summaries. A similar attempt in the corresponding Greek WP article took place last summer –including far more abusive language– and it was succesfully dealt with (further information at your disposal). Although there has been a warning via User talk:178.128.160.241 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), he came back this morning to remove the said point, though it had been revised (previous version in the article by other user: 1, version by me: 2).

I'm afraid it is not just a case of Personal research, POV, edit warring or 3RR. As can be easily understood by reading a summer 2014 discussion in User talk:188.4.153.227 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (in Greeklish, but an English translation could be provided if you wish), the forementioned phrase contradicts a very recent and much disputed theory concerning who or what was the inspiration behind the introduction of shamrock as emblem of the above football club back in 1918/1919. Apart from revealing that this theory is nothing but a 2/3 year-old creation by the owner of a no longer existinging football fans web page (not surprsingly, 188.4.153.227 may be the owner himslef), he actually admits that it was "established" THROUGH its introduction in WP! A totally undocumented contibution, since all sources used now are more recent than the site's article and the introduction in WP! Furthermore, the user he is discussing with believes that these sources do copied WP – an opinion for which he was literally attacked for (who are you to say so? You have no evidence, so it's rubbish...). Needless to mention that the single interest of 188.4.153.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in WP, was again Panathinaikos FC article and especially "protecting" the hypothesis from being removed by skeptical users.

In case you need further information, please do not hesitate to ask for (my Talk page in Greek version is here). Thank you in advance for your time, interest and future actions. Merry Xmas to us all!!!

PS his/their attempt of creating pseudohistory by taking advantage of –or even exploiting– WP's expansion and popularity, will be presented via our Forum to editors of Greek version and many of them will recall last summer's incident. Let me know whether you prefer a translation of just my initiall post or a briefing of discussion's evolvment. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Panathinaikos F.C. semi protected for one month without prejudice to what might be a correct revision. Technically , Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης you are well into a 3rr but I will not block you, but let this be a stern warning not to let it go that far again and report such issues here before it does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not just you, but no one knows what really happened one century ago, so all views should be presented without prejudice and according to Policy. But based on last summer's case in Greek edition, I am afraid this is not what the anonymous user aims at. One month is far more than enough time for the article's paragraph to be enriched, completed and documented, following WP principles (see below post to Fut.Perf). So I have to thank you once more.

Although special attention was paid not to breach 3RR, I did made a 4th revert just minutes into the 24-h period: 23:59:35 on 21/12, 17:04:33, 23:21:26 and 23:57:57 on 22/12 (my 02:21:22 edit and last, was to alter thoroughly the phrase's meaning, with a hope that it will be accepted after having had warned him and before reporting the issue). It was a matter of confusion due to the 2-h difference between UTC and local time, but still you have plenty of right. Be sure, though, this is not my way of contributing; a Greek WP block log with a single 24-h penalty last March in more than 4½ years and 7,000 edits as a Wikipedian, speaks for itself.

• • In addition to the above warning: Stelios, please be aware that, no matter how questionable the statement about the Shamrock symbol and the role of that Irish guy may be, the statement you tried to push into the article to counter it is both (a) heavily ungrammatical English and (b) itself a piece of unsourced WP:OR. This is not the right way of handling the questionable claim. If you think the sources cited for that claim are all unreliable (I take it you consider them a case of what we here call "citogenesis" [1], and you may well have a point about that), then the solution is to form a consensus on the talkpage for removing the entire claim, not to try to neutralize it with a self-made counterargument in the article that is itself unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Fut.Perf! The fact is that I did not try to push, but to preserve a connected user's edit from continuous deletions by an anonymous one. This is why it is not brought back now that the latter can not remove it anymore. When I happened to notice him deleting the sentence for the first time, it came to my mind that similar incident in gr:WP. On the other hand, you are right about the statement itself appearing to be on the fringe of OR, without having citation. Which actually exists and will be added, along with all 5 theories (not just 3, as mentioned here based on club's site). It is one of these times when disruptive edits have an opposite result to the one intended, i.e providing the perfect reason for an article to be enriched and this was the case last summer in Greek WP, too :) :) :).

Before reading this discussion yesterday – far more revealing than you can guess or have you no need of imagination knowing Greek/lish? :) –, I just thought that Sherring scenario might have had some reality base, although being the least possible of all. Even now, I am only 95% convinced that it is actually a pseudohistory backed by circular reporting of initial source some WP undocumented edits. I will inform editors of Greek edition so as to join when discussion is to start. Since having no previous experience on such matters, I need further elements from you please:

1) discussion will take place in the article's Talk page?

2) who is better to start it (you, me, someone else)?

3) is it enough just to reach a consensus for retaining/altering/removing the entire paragraph or is there e.g some sort of committee to consult? I mean one that will check and provide us with an official conclusion whether we are facing or not citogenesis.

Many thanks to you both! And Merry Xmas, in case you feel this way. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Answering your questions in their respective order:

• Yes, it doesn't require any administrative attention and thus better off on the talk page of the article.
• Anyone, be BOLD.
• No, there's no committee for such purposes. The community will discuss and preferably vote on the issue and then a non-involved admin or user will close the discussion and carry out the outcome. You might want to make it an official RfC, if you please (to get more participation, i.e.). Note, that a small discussion can be overruled but a huge RfC has much lesser chances of that happening.

Along with that, Merry Christmas to you too! --QEDK (T ❄ C) 10:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

More participation, greater number of opinions, more chances to find the truth. So, it is not just a matter of validation :). Thanks a lot, QEDK, and Merry Christmas! --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The story abt Sherring started when some fans noticed this photo with Spyros Louis from 1906 File:Spyridon Louis, The Olympic Marathon (National Historical Museum, Athens).jpg

Actually all the old officials of Panathinaikos, agree (there are old videos in the archive of ert, the national tv) that Michalis Papazoglou proposed this symbol. He used to wear it, when he was member of a Greek team in Chalkedon, Constantinople (modern Instabul). Greco22 (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hronia polla, Gkreko, kai euhomai oti epithymeis! --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Midas02: Contested WP:RM closure followed by forum-shopping

• Midas02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (disambiguation) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Reported by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Midas02 contacted me on my talk page[2] to ask me to overturn my closure[3] of a requested move discussion at Talk:Alejandro Villanueva.

The discussion on my talk didn't go well, so I closed it[4] and pointed Midas02 to WP:Move review.

A ping from another editor alerted me that instead of using move review, Midas02 had opened[5] a new RM discussion at Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (disambiguation).

I closed this new discussion[6] on procedural grounds as forum-shopping, and pointing to WP:Move review both in my closing note and in the edit summary.

I also left a message[7] Midas02's talk, again explaining that WP:Move review was still open, but that forum-shopping is not how things are done.

Midas replied[8] at length that I was engaged in "bullying and the abuse of admin rights", and reverted[9] my closure with an edit summary accusing me of "aggressive action".

I reinstated[10] the closure, again linking to WP:MOVEREVIEW in the edit summary and left a further brief note on Midas's talk page[11], again linking to WP:MOVEREVIEW.

Today, Midas02 has again reverted the closure[12], with edit summary "The bullying by BrownHairedGirl will stop now".

I have done my 1 revert, and that's me out. I am not used to a contested closure being regarded as bullying by an admin, but I'll let other admins decide how to proceed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Midas02 notified[13]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted to the closure again and warned him about edit warring. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately "bullying" has managed to become one of the "I Win words". (Which, in addition to the obvious, means those who use it in that fashion are trivializing actual bullying.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Good Close - You were right to close this BrownHairedGirl, and you're definetly not bullying him, he's got a case of butthurt, that's all KoshVorlon 16:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, KoshVorlon. All a bit of pity; it might have made an interesting move review.

I wonder if the editwar warning is sufficient to convey to Midas02 that it's time to use the established process? Hopefully there will now be more eyes on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive user evading infinite ban of former accounts User:WaterIsland resp. User:WaterIsland95

I want to inform you about the case of the disruptive IPs 85.103.155.148 (talk · contribs) and 88.251.102.7 (talk · contribs), possibly also 81.214.42.5 (talk · contribs) used by an editor who is more than obviously evading the infinite ban of WaterIsland95 (talk · contribs) and its previous incarnation as WaterIsland (talk · contribs).
Content-wise, the disagreeements aren't huge. A recent example: the user repeatedly claimed that Finansbank was already owned by Qatari QNB Bank while the purchase is only expected to be completed by Q3/2016, as per the Financial Times source. Other edits by the user are helpful though, so the user seems to be primarily unexperienced and stubborn, rather than bad faithed.
It still happened quite some times that an edit of the user proved controversial, including a number of wrongly sourced files uploaded by User talk:WaterIsland. And whenever an edit proves controversial, the problem can't be resolved as the user proved unable or unwilling to resolve any disagreements by discussion. There is also no apprehension of Wikipedia rules, though carefully briefed on User talk:WaterIsland95.
I really did my best to draw that user into a conversation, but finally failed to get the person to cooperate. When the person finally answered, the answers were derisive rather than cooperative. I have to inform you about the case now, partly in order to protect myself from potential harassing, as the user feels offended from my discussion offers and has stated that "this was just the beginning." I guess we have to block his IP range or find any other way to deal with the problem this user poses and may continue to pose. --PanchoS (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

These three are all Turk Telekom IPs but are from unrelated ranges, hence there's no opportunity for range block. I will block the IPs for a short period and will semi-protect the article Finansbank which appears to be their sole interest at this time. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the stop-gap measure, Diannaa! I reviewed all the edits again, and have to confess that I'm not 100% sure anymore whether these are really edits by the banned WaterIsland (talk · contribs). Finansbank might also have become a honeypot for casual IP contributors, particularly from Turkey. WaterIsland has been focussed so much on Greece topics that the overlap may well be a coincidence. So while semi-protection for the article is a good thing, I guess we need to unblock the IPs. I really apologize for the noise… :/
Regarding the banned WaterIsland, we'll have to wait a few days to see if that user accepts the ban this time, after there has not been any kind of response on my notice. We might want to leave the case open for a few more days to see if yet another reincarnation pops up or not. Best wishes and again sorry, PanchoS (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree; it looks to me like WaterIsland is the only person that has been editing the article since October. I think I'll leave the blocks in place. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Eeekster is disruptively tagging my user-created photographs as no permission

I have complained about his behavior before but no action was taken. Can I request more decisive action please? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs? BMK (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from examing a few of the recent ones), Eeekster is tagging them correctly. All of the images I looked at appeared to be uploaded by someone other than the creator, and they were credited to the subject of the image, not to the creator (who may be the same person, but that is unlikely for photos). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about the self-portrait used on my user page. He has done this consistently to all my photographs. (Most of which aren't self-portraits). See his behavior on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg, File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg, File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg, among numerous others. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

One tag does not make disruption. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

All three of the images you cite in the previous comment were tagged by Eeekster in October, and have not been touched by that editor since then, after the tags were removed and replaced with an OTRS notice or a license - so these hardly seem relevant now. BMK (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying this is repeated disruptive behavior. The tags were repeatedly reinstated (edit-warring behavior) until another administrator intervened. The OTRS tags were in fact unncessary. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

They were originally licensed to begin with. (Creative Commons 3.0, self-produced) Eeekster seemed to have a problem believing they were created by me, simply because I used a full-frame DSLR, a 50mm f/1.4 lens and decent composition. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that the problem with the self-portrait is the question of whether you actually took the picture or not -- for instance by setting up the shot with a tripod and timer and then walking into it -- or whether you had someone else take it, in which case the ownership of the image might be debateable, and you might have to show that it was a work made for you by hire. I think the "self-portrait" question is a rather trivial one, and Eeekster should not -- in general -- be tagging such images for permission, as they are de facto owned by the subject (you). There's no particularly need for Eekster to be quite so pedantic about it that it becomes an issue, unless there are reasons to suspect that something untoward is going on in general. I don't see that as being the case here - but I also don't see any need for any kind of sanction for Eeekster beyond perhaps a word to the wise or, at worst, a mini-trout. BMK (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, FWIW, I like the current image on your user page better than the previous one. BMK (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In some cases (but not to any current files uploaded to Wikipedia) I set the settings on my camera (and my lens), set up the lighting systems and off-camera flashes, and ask my friend (a fellow escort) to adjust the focus and press the shutter, giving clear, direct instructions. Who owns it then? ;-)

For the last image before that, I lost the original RAW file (plus exported JPG) when I had my laptop stolen by ex-boyfriend last year and only had the crappy local versions hosted on my escort ads lol. That's why it looks too oversharpened. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question: under those circumstances, I think that you own it, but it might be necessary (again, if we're being ultra-legalistic about this, which I do not think we have to be) for you to provide a statement from the other person that they were acting completely under your directions, and therefore is not in any way a creator of the photograph, any more than I am a creator of a play because I assist the author and director in editing and mounting it. BMK (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the self-portrait aspect, we shouldn't really doubt that, but we have had issues with what is called "flickrwashing" - people will take high quality photos that are from a press agency and definitely NOT PD or CC, post them to flickr, tag them as CC-BY, call them their own, and then either they or someone else will upload those to commons, hiding the copyvio. For a new-ish editor to do offer high-quality photos, we do have some bit of doubt, and the ORTS step is merely a formality. I would hope that in the future that if you (Yanping) do contribute high resolution photos that the fact that ORTS has demonstrated you have this capability that editors should not doubt that you have the camera equipment to take such photos and this should not be a problem again. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I lost the original OTRS correspondence -- I was flooded with obligations in October and they couldn't locate all my images. My Flickr account has thousands of uploads, I have been a member since 2010, and I have my own photography website with my own domain name. I'm not that new of a member, I just haven't edited Wikipedia since high school and that was under my old male name (which I don't wish to reveal). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We aren't going to ask you to connect your old account/name to this (zero need to), all I'm saying is that because we on WP have serious concerns about maintaining a free encyclopedia that we are vigilant to make sure that we don't mistag high-quality photos that are not free as free images. Without having the visible tenure of your previous account to go off, the combination of how these photos came to be do set off enough legitimacy alarms. But I'm fully satisified you took them, and the ones lists above are all good. If you upload more photos, I do expect that no one should give you the hassle of claiming you couldn't have possibly taken them or that they don't belong to you, now that we've got enough to go on to know it should be good. You're basically a false positive in our test during vigilance on bad uploads; it happens, I don't think Eeekster was being malicious here, just careful. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Tag + 2 disruptive reverts by Eeekster on File:Yanping Nora Soong self-portrait.jpg, despite the fact they were clearly made by me.
• Disruptive tagging on File:Flushing Main St, Kissena Blvd, and 41 Av crowded intersection.jpg
• Tag + 3 disruptive reverts (violation of WP:3RR) on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg
• 2 disruptive (re)tags on File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg
• Disruptive tagging on File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg
• among many others Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, these are all from October. Where are the "many others" which are more recent examples? ANd, FWIW, there's no "clearly made by me" about your self-portrait, for the reasons I outlined above -- and isn't that you in the Kissena Blvd. picture? So who took it, and under what conditions, and have you provided proof to OTRS that it was you?

You can certainly keep reiterating your complaint, but unless you've got something more recent, I'm just not seeing where you've got a case for Eeekster to be sanctioned. Perhaps others disagree with that, so I'll withdraw and allow them to comment. BMK (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This was pre-emptive because I was expecting more reverts by Eeekster (which no one took action with last time). However, if he doesn't try to tag my image as unsourced or unlicensed I won't request sanctions. Also, in my self-portrait, I am holding a camera. The lens is photographing a mirror. (d_i = d_o) The subject *is* the photographer.

The Kissena Blvd photographs are not of me, they were taken *by* me. They are street photographs. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

For the ones with OTRS tags, leave a message on my talk page here and I'll check them when I get home (I never do OTRS stuff at work). They need to have the ticket number added to them. For everything else, unless he is actually harassing you, there's nothing else which can be done here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)File:Union_Square_chess_with_spectators.jpg states the photo was originally published on flickr. Following the link, there Yanping Soong is claiming an "All right reserved" copyright. Therefore, pending an OTRS email relicensing under a creative commons license, it is a copyright violation from Wikipedia's point of view. The simple solution is simply to creative commons license the photo on flickr -- then when an editor checks the Wiki version of the photo, they'll see it's okay. NE Ent 23:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, is there a reason why you are not uploading your images to Commons, rather than to here? BMK (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to relicense all my images. I adjusted the license on one (the Flushing after the rain image) just to show that I owned it. As a copyright holder, surely I have the right to re-release images under a new license without declaring the change of license on other places that are published? The reason is that I would like to make them free for Wikipedia's use, and free for use in any derivatives and mirrors that incorporate Wikipedia, but I do not want to systematically release all my images as free (because in some cases I have plans for them), sd in some cases I get paid for licensing image use requests by certain people (doesn't involve any of the images affected).

I prefer they not be uploaded to Commons, for various reasons that I don't have time to explain right now. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In which case you should probably label them with {{Do not move to Commons|reason=}}. The reason could be "author's request". BMK (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

See [14] — Yanping's Flickr account has explicitly said "I'm also Yanping Nora Soong on Wikipedia", and I've saved that revision with the Internet Archive. Since the same person is in control of both accounts, we have no reason to doubt that the Wikipedia account is able to upload images from the Flickr account using licenses that don't appear on the Flickr account. The allegations of Flickrwashing aren't affected by this, of course. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's a fairly simple way to find out. Upload the image on Google Images and search, check a couple of matches and see ownership (also, some of the matches will just be unauthorized copy of the original but remember to check for anyone claiming to be the original). This process is much simpler on Chrome, download the Image Search Extension, right click on image, search and voila. And, credit me when it's done. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 06:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You are of course not required to use the same licence on Flickr as you provide here. With the information on Flickr, I think it should be clear to most people that you are the same person as the Flickr account holder, so any licence differences don't matter. However it's always possible someone may miss the declaration. If this happens, I suggest you simply point out to them the Flickr declaration.

I agree that I'm not seeing anything malicious, or even majorly wrong with the October stuff. In particular, I don't quite get what you mean by [15] being clearly made by you. Considering the composition of the shot, it doesn't look so much like it was taken with a tripod. With this and the other details (appearing on other sites etc), it's understandable there may have been concern.

I have much more sympathy for the recent case [16] since as you mentioned it does look likely that it was a self portrait. So I'm not sure the tagging should have happened. Still mistakes happen and we have to be very careful about copyright issues. It would also help if you resolve at least one case of a self-portrait (possibly you already did and it just hasn't been updates), then people can go off that.

BTW, I'm assuming you understand that by freely licencing your images, you are freely licencing those images point blank. While it may not be that likely many will find them, particularly if they are only on en.wikipedia (rather than commons), it remains the case that anyone anywhere is free to use them for any purpose (including commercial) in accordance with the licence terms and it doesn't matter if they are unrelated to wikipedia. (For images with identifable people including yourself, they may also have to ensure they comply with any privacy and similar requirements.)

Likewise, while most people will respect your request not to move a file to commons (see Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for example), there's no legal or clear policy barrier (well barring ones unrelated to you, like if other stuff in the image may be copyrighted). If your image is regarded as important to other wikipedias or other wikimedia projects, it's possible someone may do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to make them free for Wikipedia's use...but I do not want to systematically release all my images as free I'm still a little drowsy and soon will be consuming a LARGE HAM, so I don't have time to dig for the exact policy, but I'm pretty sure this is exactly the sort of licensing that is not allowed? An image needs to be released under a free license, or not at all, with "only free for Wikipedia" not being acceptable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends what Yanping Nora Soong means by the statement. My guess is that she meant she is unwilling to release most of her images on Flickr under a free licence, but is willing to release all the images she uploads here under a free licence. However she feels she doesn't have the time to change the licencing status on Flickr and/or perhaps would prefer to reduce re-use. (Which isn't ideal, but isn't AFAIK forbidden provided it's clear that the images are freely licenced.) I guess she expects that most reusers would be wikipedia and its mirrors because she uploaded them here. But my hope is she understand that regardless of where she freely licences the images, she's released them under the terms of that free licence. Therefore anyone including commercial users, anywhere, are free to re-use the images under the terms of the licence (including allow derivatives). I would note she didn't mention any restrictions when she uploaded the images which seems to support this view. I do agree it's important that she does understand this, hence my question/comment above. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I sell some images through Flickr occasionally, that's all. Most sold prints actually occur on the street in NYC, and I actually pay an investment cost for printing those prints on metal. People who discover the image through Wikipedia are welcome to use the images in any way they wish. It's not a huge issue right now because most of my photography income comes through commissioning new work, not paying for prints of existing work, and of that, most are on the street, not online. There's also the issue of different sizing. I'm very familiar with free licensing. There's also the issue of whether differential licensing can apply to sizes. I'm ready for any consequence of free licensing. It's just that people looking for stock images on Flickr are very different from people looking from stock images on Wikipedia.

And yeah, part of it is just general laziness to go back to the Flickr version of every image I upload to Wikipedia to make the licenses consistent. My wish for uploading to Wikipedia is primarily to educate, inform and inspire. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

What pretty much hits the nail on the head; Yanping Nora Soong is too lazy to update the out of date off-wiki licensing and is demanding other editors, upon noticing off wiki it says "all rights reserved," and on-wiki it says "creative commons," spend their volunteer time tracking the authorship to the point they realize it's really okay. NE Ent 15:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's really as hard as you suggest. If you visit the Flickr page and see it says all rights reserved but then check the details in the same page and realise it identifies the same author, it's clear it's not an issue. Presuming you aren't a bot, you should generally be reading a bit more anyway to get an idea whether it's possible the Flickr image is the only stolen. (E.g. you probably should look at the date on Flickr.) In fact, the authors name is unsurprisingly more prominent than the copyright details so you shouldn't really be missing it.

As for bots, do they not have a facility to ignore Flickr users already? I would have thought it necessary so we don't get false positives for anyone on Flickr who regularly steals images but who haven't been taken down.

In any case, volunteer contributions of useful user created freely images, particularly quality ones should always be welcome, and it doesn't make sense to say people can't licence their images seperately on different places since that's in some ways a key selling point (you can freely licence you images and allow people to use them in accordance with the licence while simulatenously continuing to sell them for those who want a different licence). I'm pretty sure there a number of people already doing that by selling their images on stock photo sites and stuff which is perfectly attune to both the wikipedia/media and commons licencing norms. We can and should find ways of dealing with any confusion created.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued addition of unsourced birth place

@Hackinghobb: has been continually changing Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison and John Lennon birth places. These changes are against accepted consensus and without sources, despite multiple warnings. User refuses to discuss or source their claims. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, but it seems as if the guy has a valid argument that Merseyside wasn't founded as a county until 1974, so the various Beatles couldn't have been born in that county, since it didn't exist at the time. It would seem as if something on the order of "Lancashire (now Merseyside)" would be a suitable compromise. BMK (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message on the editor's talk page. BMK (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No-one was claiming Merseyside was correct? That was just suggested by User:Hackinghobb's misleading edit summaries? There are no other Liverpools in England, nor anywhere in UK. So any county is redundant. Unless there is some infobox policy convention on counties, I don't see it helps the reader at all. A county might be added in the article main body for good measure, but again this seems redundant in the case of the Fab Scouse Four. A different consensus could be established at the Talk Page if need be, if their "Lancastrian-ness" was deemed so important. So this is a just a content dispute. The contentious part is the user's lack of engagement and discussion with other editors, as BMK has rightly pointed out. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the dispute seems to be about whether the birthplace should just be "Liverpool, England" or "Liverpool, Lancashire, England", surely it should be possible to come to some sort of acceptable compromise, as Liverpool is a sufficiently large place that adding a county (whether Lancashire as it was when the Beatles were born, or Merseyside as it is now) is superfluous. The Royal Mail has been trying to discourage the use of counties in postal addresses for something close to 40 years by now. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you in regards to a compromise being available, but I would point out that "location" is not necessarily the same thing as "address", so the Royal Mail's preference for no county in addresses is not really relevant. I frequently come across this problem in regard to places in Manhattan, the mailing address for which is "New York, New York". That, and the well known song by the same name, have encouraged people to use "New York, New York" as a location, when it is simply a mailing address. One can say "Manhattan, New York City, New York" or "New York County, New York" or variations on those (I prefer the latter as being the clearest), but the use of the postal address (and the zip code, which is really completely irrelevant) is not the location of the place. BMK (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe WP:RSN would be a better place for this issue? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Why reliable sources? BMK (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it seems to be the same issue that affects several related articles (WP:BLPN would be a stretch, imo). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with BMK's description of "New York, New York" as just a mailing address. I grew up there, and it's common enough as a way of emphasizing the city (e.g., out of pride) or distinguishing the city from the state. The latter is one way to avoid this type of dialogue, which I've had too often: "Where'd you grow up?" "New York." "What city?" (exaggerated accent:) "I just toldja, NOO YAWK!!" --Thnidu (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• They've all been WP:FAs for eons with just "Liverpool, England", so stick to that. There's no need to get into ceremonial county, administrative county, historic county, England, United Kingdom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe, etc., because as noted the counties changed in the 1970s or whenever. Let the FAs stand as they were. Trout the user, warn them, and block them if they persist. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! EEng (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Unless there's more than one Liverpool in England, "Liverpool, England" would seem to suffice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• This really matters, folks. If it doesn't have its own page, or at least discussions on RSN, COI, SPI and MOS by the time I get up tomorrow, I will be pissed, with a capital P, apostrophes and a hyphen. I believe it means "pool of life". I'd suggest the antagonists get one, but that might take away from the Happy Christmas I wish you all. Begoon ^talk 17:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• I've issued a stern warning and will be happy to block if this continues. I suggest this be closed. Happy Boxing Day everyone! --John (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone want to untangle this, um, really really really not here?

See User:Marion.Walker MD. This might be a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrankEM/Archive sock but those socks seem to be able to hold it together more. Some samples from the talk page:

Starts: My WP User ID was just stolen and can now be used by both me and the person who stole it and so after I post all this I will never use this ID again.

Also stolen is a Tea House Admin WP User ID and Nthep you can still use your WP ID, but a group of programmers will now be using it too.

STOLEN WP User ID Nthep deleted MY post from the Tea House.

Original WP User ID https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ashton_Cable&action=edit&redlink=1

This WP User is now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nthep

=Programmer took the WP ADMIN User ID KateWishing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_tool_apprenticeship/User:YourUsername_(November_2011)&action=edit&redlink=1

This programmer has moved thousands of files, but here is 1 example. 'Another example in the 2008 time-frame https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prince_Gebauer&action=edit&redlink=1

Notice on the same page but now its 2015 because this programmer moved the files. This ID is one of the programmers favorites it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NeilN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%CE%A3&offset=20150928013341&action=history

Watch how he does this and notice your navigation thru the history files because the dates are rearranged by this programmer and many have been moved and destroyed, and that's a whole other subject, but its what the programmer is doing to WP. Interesting is when I copied this I copied 3 lines, and pasted it here and 2 lines were gone and then reappeared. I know why, and its not good for WP. (cur | prev) 20:10, 15 November 2015‎ Σ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,790 bytes) (+320)‎ . . (→‎Editor interaction analyzer: Derp) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:47, 15 November 2015‎ Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,470 bytes) (+305)‎ . . (→‎Editor interaction analyzer: R) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:09, 15 November 2015‎ Σ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,165 bytes) (+742)‎ . . (→‎Editor interaction analyzer: Fixed) (undo | thank) Marion.Walker MD (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Marion.Walker MD (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It gets worse. They are continuing to copy/paste from various pages. Obviously a block is forthcoming but does anyone recognise any of this behavior? Doug Weller talk 17:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Really hurting my head reading through this (nothing do to with the fact it's Christmas) and the editor's posts elsewhere - does the editor believe Doc James has access to an account of theirs (per this edit summary)? -- samtar ^whisper 17:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently they believe that about half of the admin corps and "any editor whose name is in red" does. After looking at this I'm still not entirely sure if this is some sort of trolling or someone who's simply WP:NOTHERE, but if they're serious they have serious problems comprehending how Wikipedia works and and if they're not it's obvious trolling, so either way I've blocked (and will probably be next in line to be declared as one of those programmers stealing accounts...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}. I'm asking for a checkuser to check Marion.Walker MD. The user is obviously a sock. She mentions Prince Gebauer and Ashton Cable, but I'm not sure if those are her other accounts. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what this user is getting at. Not sure of possible socks but likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 In progress.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Marion.Walker MD and FrankEM are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I see no justification to check Price Gebauer or Ashton Cable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content from STH235SilverLover

Please note that STH235SilverLover (talk · contribs) keeps adding unsourced content into articles [17] after a final warning was given to them in November [18]. They should be well aware of WP:VERIFY by now.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

One more diff [19] showing unsourced changes.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't know if that's truly vandalism. Maybe WP:DISRUPT?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY says "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (wikilink original). I didn't write that, I just copy-pasted it from the last "Unsourced content!" ANI Jetstreamer started about a different editor. See also yet another editor reverting Jetstreamer's unnecessary reversion of STH235SilverLover [20].

Big picture. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to provide information to readers. To help maintain the quality that information, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a rule that says if unsourced content is added, and "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" should be sourced; it goes on at length to explain the nuances of that statement, including what to do about it, including tagging or removing it. Rat the editor out at ANI is not on the list: Verifiability does not exist to play wikt:gotcha every time someone adds unsourced content, and it complements, rather than supersedes other "rules" like assume good faith and is definitely subordinate to not a bureucracy. NE Ent 16:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is one of the core content policies, not "a rule" as you say. I'm not gonna argue with you. The editor in question kept adding uncited information even after he had a final warning. Let's an admin take care of this. One more thing: this reversion [21] was not unnecessary, as there were no inline citations to the claims added. A link to an article is not a citation. There seems to be more people than I imagine that does not want to accept what is unsourced and what is not.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

However, it's also a fact that, with the exception of BLPs, it's not required that sources be IN an article in order to satisfy WP:V, they need only exist, and they do not have to be easily accessable. While it is in fact good practice to reference all the things and it's true that anything not referenced can be removed, that is a fact that is often forgotten. Also, I'm in agreement with Ent in wondering how this rises to the level of something that needs to be discussed at ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Not forgotten by me, actually. I always provide citations for my edits. WP:V reads "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." It's crystal clear to me: it says nowhere not to include citations. Finally, if I took this to AIV as suggested above some admins say to take it here, as it happened in the past.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunatly "circular thataways" sometimes happen and can be extremely frustrating. (Also, as a note, the specific bit I was thinking of in WP:V is point #1 under the "original research" section, clarified in footnote 1 of WP:NOR.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Retro-redakteur.u12

Anybody wants to react to an unprovoked personal attack [22]? I first thought it is Tobias Conradi, but SPI shows this disruptive account is unrelated.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

31 hours should do for a start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone may also want to have a look at the swath of place renames that this editor did, which I suspect are entirely neutral... (but certainly often half-baked, when the page name changed but the content didn't) LjL (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus in the topic of names of Belarusian localities. There are three different transliterations, and the community was not able to decide in favor of any of the three, so that currently we use for large cities most common names, and for others wait for a miracle. They were editing explicitly against consensus, this is why I was sure they are Tobias Conradi (who as Derianus was doing exactly the same in articles about Belarusian localities).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: You know you have the option of blocking the user based on behavior.  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Bbb23, but after they personally attacked me I do not feel I am the right person to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The account attacked you in response to your filing the SPI. Such an attack does not prevent you from taking administrative action unless you are otherwise involved. Still, if you feel uncomfortable doing so, I'll do it as the behavioral evidence is sufficiently persuasive to block, or Vanjagenije can do it, peu importe.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference desk vandal

Could some kind admin block 36.3.252.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? They've been vandalizing Wikipedia talk:Reference desk as well as removing reports from WP:AIV, which seems to be backlogged. Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

And 126.46.146.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Actually, just semi-protect WT:RD and maybe they'll get bored and stop. clpo13_(talk) 18:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected until 29 December 2015. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing reports from WP:AIV may seem to a vandal to be useful, but since admins frequently check the history of WP:AIV, it actually makes it more obvious. Unfortunately, the Reference Desks and their talk page are a frequent target for vandals and trolls. At any given time, it is typical that one or two of the Reference Desks are semi-protected, because the admins are playing Whack-a-Mole with the trolls. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This [23] was indeed sort of, erm, persistent. Many IP vandals stop after a level 4 warning, not this person. As I am not an admin, all I could do all the time was rollback (Twinkle). Of course, because it is Christmas, less people including admins are around than usual. While I was rolling back I was wondering if there is an easy way of knowing which admins are live online (or at least logged in) in case you would want to talk to them on their Usertalkpage if a report elsewhere (in this case AIV) seems to snow under under a growing backlog? I only know a few admins by name, but even then I'd have to go to their contribs-view to guess if anyone of them is online "right now"? Of course, it didn't occur to me I could also use Twinkle for a Page Protection Request (though even that means, hoping any admin is present and sees it), sorry about that, maybe it would have stopped earlier (unless I am hugely overestimating my effect on WP here lol). Well, anyway, Merry Christmas to you all, or whatever you wish to celebrate around this time of year. Poepkop (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested range blocks for IP-hopping vandals

Once again IP-users are subtly vandalizing tropical cyclone articles and abusing numerous addresses. The first user utilizes a base IP of 50.153.x.x and an IPv6 address of 2601:3c6:8000:e7c0:x:x:x:x. Given that the vandalizing is nearly identical and the addresses trace back to either Tennessee or Massachusetts, I'm assuming them to be from the same person. The second user is a returning person from the summer whom was subjected to a week-long range block. The second person's IP base of traces back to Mexico, and given the similar nature of their edits I'm assuming them to be the same person as in the linked incident. It's been spread out over several months, with the IPs mainly adding fake tropical cyclone names or altering intensities to incorrect values. Since I don't know how to do so myself, I'm requesting range blocks be implemented as these people likely won't stop for quite some time.

Thanks in advance, ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Alvin the Almighty

Alvin the Almighty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Admiral Alvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly disrupting Wikipedia despite endless warnings and attempts to help him. An example of his disruptions is adding not useful tags to articles that don't need them, also considered as overkill (example). He also likes adding unnecessary speedy deletion tags to articles which at the end of the day, usually stay. Another of his habits are copy-pasting templates from other users' pages to his own which lead other users to need to delete it. The last example I also believe that the user who added the administrator template (User:GOFA) is an account handled by the same person since GOFA's only interactions were in a page Alvin tagged. My last example of disruption is that the user changes user comments to make him seem like 'the good guy'. He also deletes warnings and in a conversation with User:Samtar, he linked WP:ABF which is a humorous essay as a response to WP:AGF. Pinging @Samtar: @PamD: for comments. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with deleting warnings - only declined unblock requests are not allowed to be removed. Refactoring comments though is a huge no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: The part about deleting warnings are fine, however on WP:BLANKING it says: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages... If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. In this case, the user has deleted the comments but continues to do what the users commented (not even warnings, just being very friendly) on his talk page not to do. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death vandal?

Any opinions about whether User:2600:100E:B109:2C5E:BC96:3D65:ACC6:319 is the Cause of death vandal? If not, most of their contributions have been unsourced, so I've deleted most of them, but if they are the CODV, then a block is probably in order. BMK (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't believe that he/she is a vandal, but he/she is definitely not competent to be editing. Most of their edits had to be reverted and none were necessary. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)-

Motion to ban Alwayssmileguys for mass promotion and undeclared paid editing

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

Dear community, I am putting forward a motion that we, the editors, permanently site ban Alwayssmileguys.

Evidence:

• A sock farm of over a dozen accounts was confirmed by a check user during an SPI.
• Several editors concluded following the SPI and during discussions on the editor's talk page that behavioural evidence indicated mass promotion and paid editing. Several articles were deleted through CSD, AFD, and the remaining were blown up as was done in the case of OrangeMoody.
• At Talk:Seattle Seafair Commodores, Myestro69 issued a statement confirming that they paid an editor to start the page. The page was started by Alwayssmileguys.
• On the talk page of Talk:RingMeMaybe (mobile application), a different editor disclosed that they had been engaged to edit the article for monetary gains. The article was created by Alwayssmileguys.

When confronted with the evidence of paid editing at the SPI and on their talk page, the editor played ignorant and refuted the evidence. This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK and WP:PAID/WP:COI. I have put this motion forward as I suspect this editor may attempt to return or engage in further sock puppetry, especially now that there is a financial implication whereby the editor has already received funds. I am pinging into this conversation other editors that contributed to building this case and dealt with this user for their input: Ohnoitsjamie, The Bushranger, Reddogsix, Deb, and Bbb23. Thank you, Mkdw^talk 04:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Even following the CU block, Alwayssmileguys came back to harass a user who had proposed some of their creations for deletion. clpo13_(talk) 16:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Mkdw's pings of the above users didn't work because he signed it after putting in the usernames. I found out because I have the sockmaster's user/talk pages on my watchlist. Repeating the pings: Ohnoitsjamie, The Bushranger, Reddogsix, Deb.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A month or so ago I noticed a pattern where ASG would create an article about some person, with few or no reliable sources; when I looked for more sources I found at least half a dozen instances where the subject of the article immediately linked to the brand-new Wikipedia article from their Facebook page or Twitter profile or official page - in a couple of cases, the person who was the subject of an article also showed up in AfD discussions, or removed speedy tags. While it's not unusual for fans to create pages about people they admire (which is what ASG has claimed to be doing), it not all that common for those people to find out about the Wikipedia articles within a few days (or even hours) of their creation. There is no doubt at all in my mind that this user has been involved in undisclosed paid editing. Combined with the socking both before and after the master was blocked, as well as the frequent attacks on editors who have tagged their articles for deletion, I think a community ban is called for. --bonadea contributions talk 21:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I absolutely support the ban. As the editor that created the initial Sock investigation I was surprised to see the number of socks involved, but even more surprised to see the editor deny the evidence provided by the CU. Not only did the editor deny their involvement in socking at the investigation, but at various times in the AfD discussion. reddogsix (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they were blocked two days ago. John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Haven't interacted enough to opine on a ban, but I will note they're socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

sockpuppetry and edit-warring by jordandlee

This involves both edit-warring and sockpuppetry, from a very new user (about two months) who has apparently ignored and rejected all advice.

I've been copyediting on Philadelphia Phillies since around June 19 of this year (2015). On December 22 I made four consecutive edits, the last of them consisting of a couple of minor wording changes. The next day Jordandlee reverted the last one, in § 2008 World Series Champions, with no edit memo. I asked him why on his talk page; and seeing that he was a very new user, I requested advice from Sir Joseph, who I saw had had talks with him before (November 2015 — December 2015).

Jordandlee replied on my talk page:

Please pay attention to your edits. Your contributions to the Phillies' page were very careless. Also, there was no need to bring other people into our most recent disagreement. Also, I undid your other edits because, they did, indeed, have many grammar mistakes. Jordandlee (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This was inaccurate in every way. I replied there that in accordance with WP:DR I was taking the discussion to the Phillies talk page, and did so; see there (§ 2008 World Series Champions) for details.

(Everything after this point is in Talk:Philadelphia Phillies#1980 World Series.)

He replied with false statements about my edits* and complaints about interactions with another editor, demonstrating his own ignorance of Wikipedia policies and standards†:

Thnidu recently added and took out a couple of paragraphs to the 1980 World Series section of this article–and I undid them using †my second account, Jorduf. The problem with his/her edits is that *they were not about that subject and what was taken out was. Yet, for some reason Materialscientist undid my revisions. If anyone can explain to me why they are doing that, it would be very much appreciated. Jordandlee (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

In reply, I quoted and cited the guideline against multiple accounts, urged him to seek help, and pointed him to the Help Desk. He denied my accusations. I itemized the evidence against him, in detail and with links; he rebutted with an insult. Meanwhile he (as Jorduf) thanked himself (as Jordandlee), further demonstrating his sockpuppetry.

This novice user has been warned repeatedly, first by Sir Joseph, then Muboshgu, and now by myself, and has failed to show any learning or contrition. I request that he be banned.

--Thnidu (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Just starting to look into this, but he does seem to admit both accounts are his here. SQL^{Query me!} 11:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

And here. SQL^{Query me!} 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That being said - I don't see him using the second account to support itself on talk pages, or to skirt 3rr. Just because someone has more than one account isn't necessarily grounds for a ban. I honestly don't see anything actionable here - but I am pretty tired. SQL^{Query me!} 11:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I think you are right. Doesn't seem to be any actual sock puppetry going on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The "admission" didn't come till after misuse to conceal edit-warring. In looking through the page history to analyze and document Jordandlee's behavior, I had seen "Jorduf"'s edits with no idea that they were by the same person, despite his claims that

I make it quite obvious I am the same person by stating so, and VERY similar usernames.

That refers to

("and I undid them using my second account, Jorduf").

In fact, until then he had done nothing like "stating so". That was his first mention anywhere of multiple accounts, not disclosed anywhere until well into my exchanges with him. See Talk: Philadelphia Phillies#thn-counterevidence. And that's on top of, and in support of, his edit-warring. --Thnidu (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Removals of AFD template by User:Shivanshsinghrajpoot

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

---

Despite multiple warnings, including two final warnings, on User talk:Shivanshsinghrajpoot, the user has continued to remove the AfD template from the Government Polytechnic Soron Kasganj article ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28]). AllyD (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User Unjustly Blocked

Can an administrator please review and unblock my account? I've made no violations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamwil (talk • contribs) 10:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you can write here, you are not blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean blocked from editing pages.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamwil (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

What was your old username? Legacypac (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

what do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamwil (talk • contribs) 11:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as any of us can tell, you are not blocked. If you could share the error message you get when you try to edit - we could help determine what is stopping you from editing. SQL^{Query me!} 11:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Clearly not an IP block as the user can edit here (and they know about ANI on their first edit from this account), so it seems like clear block evasion. I have blocked with instruction to request unblock on original account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Could it be that this user is trying to edit a protected article? Reyk _YO! 12:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That was why I asked the question I did. SQL^{Query me!} 12:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(←) Well now. Either there is some info unavailable to me, or this was too quick to end. If indeed the problem was they were not yet autoconfirmed, and had no idea how to communicate that, it makes no difference now. Their unblock request was denied and their talk page access removed! I hope maybe a CU confirmed a sock? Otherwise, bye bye new user. Maybe this can be reviewed more closely. Rgrds. --64.85.217.89 (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The block, while not completely unreasonable, was a little pre-emptive, but removal of talk page access seems very excessive given that their single edit to it was to request an unblock. Sam Walton (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I'm seeing: A new user says above "I mean blocked from editing pages." I read that to mean they're not autoconfirmed but it is misunderstood as block evasion. @Boing! said Zebedee: blocks as a sock but also writes on their talkpage @11:59UTC "Alternatively, if you insist this is your only account, please post an unblock request containing details of the message you get when you try to edit." Then @13:40UTC they say they are not a sock, but 3 minutes later @MaxSem: declines the request with "Pfft, you admitted it yourself with your first edit." AND removes TP access in the same edit. This editor needs attention quickly. @Hamwil:, if you are reading here, please read WP:AUTOCONFIRMED and see if that answers your question as to why you cannot edit certain pages (hint: you do not have enough edits yet). Also, it would be nice to know what page you tried to edit. Rgrds. --64.85.217.89 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I support the reinstatement of talk page access, and I'll add a new message on their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• OK, I've added a message to their talk page and I'm watching it and will respond to any replies. But there are a few suspicious things here - the account was registered in April 2015 but made no edits until today and that was an unblock request here at ANI, and their subsequent unblock request on their Talk page says "I demand that I be unblocked immediately" which didn't help and isn't really the way a complete newbie usually responds. Anyway, AGF and all that - if a suitable explanation is forthcoming I'll be happy to unblock and offer my apologies (and would note that in the block log too). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I really do think it is possible this is a new user being confused about autoconfirm. It can be difficult to understand the difference between being blocked and being prevented from accessing a page. That being said if there is other evidence I am missing then I accept that. HighInBC 17:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've unblocked this user, per above, to allow them to reply directly here. Reblock if needed after investigation. Prodego ^talk 17:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough - I'll apologise for being too hasty. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Blatant POV editing

There is a block-evading IP using multiple IP addresses to continually insert pro-Israel/anti-Arab material into Wikipedia. The IP claims they are somehow exempt from WP:ARBPIA3, but that it applies to anyone reverting their propaganda. IPs used:

• 83.61.142.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.30.76.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 150.214.94.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.157.78.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.54.44.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Cool Troll Killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wolfgangmatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• and several earlier usernames/IPs that I can dig through and find if you need

Going to ping several users that have also been involved in reverting them in case they want to add anything – @TracyMcClark, Murry1975, RolandR, and TheTimesAreAChanging:

Has been blocked on several occasions and warned for edit-warring. Needs action if possible. 220.253.153.55 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC) (formerly 203.59.211.55)

Might want to consider spi. GAB^Hello! 15:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

150.214.94.231 (talk · contribs) used the edit comment "I was editing before the prohibition in November, so WP:ARBPIA3 doesn't apply to me, but it does apply to the IP whose disruptive edit you are restoring for whatever reason" at least twice.[29][30]. That's not what WP:ARBPIA3 says; it reads "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." So all those IPs should be blocked. The non-IPs listed, Cool Troll Killer (talk · contribs) and Wolfgangmatron (talk · contribs), are already blocked. 220.253.153.55 (talk · contribs), the complaining party, is also editing in this area[31][32], which, as an anon, they should not be doing, and since they're complaining here, they know they should't be doing it. ArbCom has made it clear - if you want to edit in this area, you must register and gain some reputation first. John Nagle (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Kisneee's repeated violation of Wikipedia policies

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

---

This user created the page Gamers_dictionary about their own project, blatantly advertising. The article was nominated for speedy deletion, and the notice was then removed by [[User::Kisnee]]. They were given various warnings on their user talk page, which were then removed. The user also insulted the two editors (myself, User:iamoctopus and User:DVdm. The talk page of the article has now been blanked. This is a repeated and deliberate attempt to prevent the article being deleted. Iamoctopus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Page deleted as G11, indef blocked. Katie^talk 14:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Can blocked users still edit their own pages, as User:Kisneee has now added insulting messages to their user talk page Iamoctopus (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked editors can, by default, edit their own talk page. It its possible for an admin to revoke talk page access as well, but we try not to as it makes it technically harder for the user to challenge their block or request reconsideration. While the comments after block are a bit uncivil, they aren't that bad, and I'd suggest leaving them alone unless they do something more disruptive with their talk page. Monty₈₄₅ 14:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh? I just revoked their tpa, with a template telling them how to appeal. Change it if you like, Monty. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC).

I like the part where he calls wikipedians "iditos". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Red herring and User:Clepsydrae

User:Clepsydrae is adding material to Red herring that is clearly opinionated original research synthesis based on material he/she saw on the fictional TV show NCSI. I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page but was immediately met with bad faith, calling me "ignorant" which has shut down communication. Given how clearly it violates OR and RS, I would like to see the material reverted and Clepsydrae get consensus for its inclusion through an RfC or other means. Any help appreciated. Thank you. -- GreenC 18:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Clepsydrae is edit warring with myself and another editor. I have used up my 3RR for the 24h and won't revert again. -- GreenC 19:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User Green Cardamom's allegations are unfounded. The user reverted the material twice, once before I had the opportunity to add the references, and a second time after I had added the references, but clearly before ever bothering to review them. I strongly object to his/her use of bureaucratic red tape as a way to force his/her opinion, clearly contrary to the opinions of the references I provided in my edits, onto the Wikipedia population as a whole. It's actions like that which "shut down communication." There's absolutely nothing on my user talk page indicating he/she ever even attempted such communication. My first and only indication was a link to this page. Meanwhile, the sources are valid, scholarly material acceptable in any institution of higher learning (I am a university professor), and I strongly object to Green Cardamom's obfuscation of the issue and bureaucratic bullying in reverting a very simple, straightforward, and clarifying addition to a Wikipedia article. The reason for Wikipedia's existence is to learn, a process that is thwarted when a user closes their mind to anything new or different, particularly when it's well-referenced, and knee-jerk reverts the article to it's old, stagnant, and off-the-mark status. I am new to terms like "OR and RS," but I am NOT new to scholarly research, having earned my first degree more than a quarter century ago, professional associations along the way, and additional degrees since then, with honors (top of my class). Green Cardamom's behavior is NOT scholarly. It's NPOV (I know that term) and anti-learning. Contrary to his/her opinion, he/she is not the expert on the term, and has as much to learn about its history as anyone. I would like to see my latest edit stand as is, and protected from further deletion by those who are apparently married to a falsehood and refusing to examine and follow the substantiating references I provided. Clepsydrae (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

EO's explanation of the term may be useful:[33] Clepsydrae (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed, Baseball Bugs, and Doug Harper's qualified, scholarly efforts certainly support my addition to the red herring article. Thank you. Clepsydrae (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of missing link: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=red+herring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clepsydrae (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm unable to determine what, exactly, Clepsydrae is objecting to in the article as it stood. He seems to be confusing the use of "red herring" in its literal sense (a type of cured fish) with its metaphorical sense, in which the expression refers to a false lead. Both of these were referred to and dated in the article. It's unclear in what way Clepsydrae thinks the TV show NCIS refutes the previous content of the article, but I agree with the talk-page commenters that it's unacceptable as a reference. (I seem to recall that the only time I watched the show The West Wing, the president [who was supposed to be blindingly erudite] made the point that he read Chaucer "in the original Old English". That statement has always seemed to me to exemplify quite effectively the quality of TV writers' research.) Deor (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The article as it stood relies almost entirely on the [[34]] of "etymologist Michael Quinion" while simultaneously excluding the qualified research of many other, highly-reputable sources, including Merriam-Webster. True, Quinion is an accomplished scholar. He is not, however, to be considered the only expert on the subject. As near as I can tell, he has no degree at all, having merely "studied physical sciences" at Cambridge University. I have two degrees, several professional credentials as a academician, am working on my PhD, and, like Quinion, I too have a website. That does not, however, qualify me as any more of an expert than Quinion. What qualifies my additional paragraph are the independent third-party references from reputable organizations like Merriam-Webster. And again, folks, please STOP referring to the NCIS description as a "reference." I used it only as a very well-worded description of the origin of the term. The references substantiating its origins as truth, however, came from other sources I included using the references tags. The only reason I referenced the NCIS quote was to avoid plagiarism and give credit for where it was due. Again, the NCIS quote is NOT the authoritative source substantiating the origin of the term. It is merely a very good description. As such, it should be left intact, if for no other reason than as the clearest description available of the historically consistent etymology. The authoritative sources (plural) substantiating the origin of the term came from the other sources I provided. Have I made myself clear? Or will I see yet another off-target comment along these lines? Please do not fixate on what is not important. What is important in the paragraph I created is that it reminds readers that a single individual individual's opinion (Quinon) is not sufficient to counter centuries of etymological documentation to the contrary. It reminds users that one individual's blog post does NOT undermine centuries of contrary research to the contrary. Believing otherwise is, at best, "revisionist history." No! Don't do that. That's not the way academia works! My edits restore at least a glimmer of accuracy backed up by centuries of research in the etymology of the term "red herring," while providing a very good description of the still mainstream consideration of its etymology. If Quinion wants to claim otherwise, he's going to have to do substantially more than a mere blog post, and if Wikipedia users want to claim it so, they're going to have to do more than point to a single source. Again, one source does NOT constitute the "status quo" as the article as it stood (stands) wrongly claims. Clepsydrae (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Quinion's article is based, not on his "opinion", but, as he says, on research recently (at the time of his writing) published in the journal Comments on Etymology and accepted by the OED. I'd say that's pretty persuasive. In any case, you need to get consensus on the talk page before adding your material to the article again. Deor (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on an article about a phrase? Because that's very much what it looks to me like Clepsydrae is trying to do here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

my screwup

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

---

Please undo my screwup move Sherpa -> Sherpa (disambiruation) and delete the latter page. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Monty₈₄₅ 18:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Manualy unblocked user continues disruptions

User:FreeatlastChitchat was manualy unblocked (for unkown reasons), and has now started to disrupt Islam related topics again. He also continues with personal attacks, while asked to stop those. Please read the previous reports (by tons of users) on the noticeboard and please re-evaluate the reason for his unblock (see here). He can't continue like this. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat was blocked for edit warring and unblocked because of their promise to adhere to WP:1RR (see User talk:FreeatlastChitchat#December 2015), so it's not an unknown reason for the unblock. I've also notified FreeatlastChitchat of this discussion as required. clpo13_(talk) 18:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearling that up. I had no clue this could be a valid reason to unblock someone considering the massive disruptions (not just editwars) he has caused. Anyway, please investigate him for his recent repeated or egregious personal attacks. As per wikipedia:No_personal_attacks this may lead to sanctions including blocks. He was asked to stop, but instead replied by making his attacks even more insulting. These attacks are one of many (earlier) disruptions of an Islam related topic, considering his past it should be time to make sure he stops now.143.176.216.29 (talk)

Full block (and unblock) log is here:[35] To see it, check the user's contrib's page and select "block log". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the comments mentioned by the OP were made days after the block would have expired so I don't see what we need to review since they would have been able to make the comments at that time regardless of whether or not there was an early unblock. I think the real question is whether or not the comments being linked to are personal attacks and if any action should take place.--67.68.23.129 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by 96.241.164.3

96.241.164.3 has been making repeated additions of spurious information to Super Bowl and airline pages, even after several warnings. 32.218.35.213 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for vandalism. Routine vandalism is typically reported at WP:AIV. While blatant vandalism can result in a block without a full set of warnings, the most typical course is for an editor to be reported at AIV after they have received a final (4th) warning, and vandalize again. Monty₈₄₅ 19:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

IP sock

I am here with a previous complaint made by User:Snowded here. I was reverted by the user through another IP sock 78.145.96.44. They use the same edit summaries as the other IPs and had the dignity to return to the same page at Hope not Hate. The previous IPs were blocked for WP:NPA and socking if I recall properly. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP just recently tried to remove my thread [36]. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP is on the verge of entering edit war on my talk page [37], but probably will be in that territory once an admin reaches out. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please know that I added the ANI notice on their talk page. They just blanked their talk page [38]. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)