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

Edit warring to restore NFCC violation and unsourced claims

Walter Görlitz has been blocked at least a dozen times for edit warring and 3RR violations. A few days ago, I removed a clear NFCC violation (nonfree album cover in musician bio, no discussion of cover in article text) from Terry Scott Taylor. Görlitz restored the image and made a non-policy-based justification for his action on my talk page. Two other editors, including one admin, pointed out his error, and explained carefully why the image should be removed (User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#FUR). After twodays, when no other editor supported retaining the image and Walter did not respond, I removed the image again. Walter, without engaging in substantive discussion, has restored the NFCC violation several more times. I have also removed a laundry list of about twenty-five performers supposedly "influenced" by this musician, sourced only to a blog post where one of those twenty-five performers describes a song Thomas wrote as "awesome". Walter also restored that, arguing that "referenced content" cannot be removed even if the reference does not support the claims. It's pretty evident that he either does not understand or is unwilling to follow basic NFCC, RS, and BLP principles. There's no point in waiting until he formally violates 3RR again; this is a longstanding misbehavior pattern without any reasonabnle justification. Since he's abandoned the substantive discussion he began on my talk page, and hasn't engaged with the other editors who tried to explain his errors to him, I don't believe this can be resolved without further intervention. (and, of course, my removal of a clear NFCC violation is exempt from 3RR limits). Perhaps, as long-term remediation, Görlitz could be placed under 1RR limits to prevent further timesinks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no clear NFCC violation as there is a fair use rationale provided on the image. That FUR has not been contested. Despite pointing that out to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, the editor is clearly ignoring the law and using some undefined consensus to support edit warring in removing the image. I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And now that Adam9007 (talk · contribs) has correctly nominated it for deletion, it should only be a short while before it does not exist and the process started by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in the incorrect location will be over. Again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And since the FUR has been removed as invalid, I will remove the image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The FUR wasn't removed; the file copyright tag was removed which actually creates is different problem per WP:F4 since all files are required to have a license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Break 1

What makes that album cover any different from the hundreds and hundreds already used in Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, the vast majority of images of album covers are used only in articles about those specific albums. In occasional cases, they are used in an article about a photographer, for example, if there is critical commentary about the cover photography in the article. In this case, Walter has been trying to use the cover art in a biography of the musician, without any critical commentary of the album cover. That violates WP:NFCI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

So the solution or workaround is to write a separate article about the album? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Look up fair use doctrine, User:Baseball Bugs. It specifically allows use of non-commercially damaging reproductions and excerpts when there is scholarly commentary on that copyrighted item/excerpt. So a mere gallery of album covers is not fair use, but reproducing covers which are famous in themselves is allowed in articles on those albums or covers or cover designers. Evidently this is argued not to be the case in this complaint. I might support action, but where are the supporting diffs, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There was no gallery and there was discussed of the album, although not of the cover (not that there is discussion of the cover art in 95% of album articles I've seen). And in this case, there was a fair use rationale that was applied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did not argue it was invalid nor was there an attempt to dispute the FUR or have the image deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point I'm making. If 95% of album articles have no commentary on the cover, that means 95% of those articles are simply using the album covers as decorations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not "decoration", illustration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly; having the image of the album cover in an article on the album adds to the encyclopedic value and comprehension of the article subject, and is thusthus should be permissible under fair use. Having a random album cover as "here's an album this artist made" in an artist's article does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So, again I say, the workaround is to create a separate article about the album and post the picture there instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Assuming the album is notable, that should be an approprate use, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That gets into a slippery issue. For example, are all Beatles albums automatically notable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(From an NFC standpoint, if an album is notable, then it is presumed there is secondary sources that talk about the album in depth. As such one cover image of that album is within NFCC guidelines as it also implicitly gives the marketing and branding that was associated with the album, along with the "commentary" aspects for fair use for the discussion about the album (see WP:NFCI#1) This only applies to the standalone article on the album - anywhere else, the use must have a proper rationale and should be more than "just to illustrate the album on a different page".) --MASEM (t) 04:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a gallery in that article, did I, Walter? You need to understand a principle being explained when you see one. Your edit history shows a lack of reading comprehension and raises questions of WP:Competence is required. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

To clear up several mistakes by several editors, just because an image fails WP:NFCI it doesn't mean it can't be used. That said, the current rational for its inclusion is using {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} which can only be used as the rational for a standalone album page. This is an insufficient rationale for use on the artist's page (and just arguing "well, this is the only place we're talking about the album since it can't have a separate page" is not a usable rationale/reason for this. But that all said, while one should not edit war over a disputed rationale, disputed rationale is not also an "automatic" NFCC violation that would be exempt from edit warring (that would be if it was a flat-out copyright violation). The image should be discussed appropriately at WP:FFD to determine if its use can on the artist's page can meet NFCC (specifically NFCC#8) and if it can't it should be deleted. If it can, the rational needs to be fixed and use a non-canned rationale to justify the reason. (All that said, I don't think we can justify the image on NFCC#8 grounds - there's very little discussed about the album relative to the artist, so it fails NFC) --MASEM (t) 04:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Masem: Thank you for the voice of reason. Fair use is not a black and white issue. Disputed fair use rationales are serious, but not so serious that they require immediate strong-arm suppression in favor of the person advocating deletion, or admin action against the person advocating fair use. Overreaction to disputed fair use rationales constitutes copyright paranoia, and that is not something that should be encouraged. These issues can, and should, be reasonably resolved via FFD, without edit warring, and without admin intervention. The project has never been harmed by waiting for the correct process to take its course, and I will add that the image has been in use since 2014, so let's not pretend that this is an urgent issue that requires immediate admin intervention. I agree that the NFCC rationale is weak, but regarding the requested admin intervention, the relevant policy here is WP:3RRNO, which very intentionally addresses this specific issue. Edit warring is only allowable if the disputed content is "unquestionably" a copyvio. If we're dealing with a longstanding fair use image, that has an FUR (however debatable), and an established editor advocating in good faith for its continued preservation, that, to me, does not appear to be an "unquestionable" violation in need of one-sided action, but rather a genuine FUR dispute that should and is being hashed out at FFD. Recommend closure of this complaint without action. Swarm ♠ 06:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is the rule about pictures of albums so much more lenient than pictures of living persons? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

While someone is living, there is the possibility a compliant photo can be taken that illustrates the subject (person). It is unlikely-to-zero a compliant album cover will be released that illustrates the subject (album). Its the same principle, but one can happen, the other will not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely that a compliant album cover will illustrate the album? I think you've got that backwards. An album cover will always illustrate the album. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand how/why NFCC is applied. We can use pictures of the album cover on the album page to illustrate the album, because despite being non-free media, they are the only likely possible image available to illustrate the album so fall under fair use. They are not going to re-release the album with a new album cover that satisifies our criteria for being a 'free' picture. With a living person, given the copyright rules on photos of people, there is always a likelihood that a new photo could be taken that can be released under a free licence, so you cant get away with stating that a non-free alternative cant be found. (With some exceptions, do we have a free picture of the leader of NK yet? -edit- Apparently we use a photorealistic sketch, ha.) Which is why with dead people we can often use non-free media. Its unlikely we will get a free replacement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless an album is pulled from circulation and hence no longer exists in public view, a picture of the album is not needed for identification purposes. The only reasonable justification for an album illustration is if (1) there has been notable commentary about the cover (as with, for example, the Sgt. Pepper cover); or (2) the album is no longer available, i.e. "dead". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes? Feel free to go nominate album covers from their respective articles if you feel the community considers that interpretation valid. Good luck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm more of an inclusionist, so I would take the opposite argument: That the notion that identifying albums is somehow much more important than identifying people, makes no logical sense. Maybe this is why some other Wikipedia sites don't allow fair use at all. Then there's no argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I lean towards making it possible to use more images, even if it's at the expense of some disputes over NFCC. I'd love for it to be easier to use non-free pics of living people when it's proven very hard to impossible to find free ones, but not at the expense of losing another category of images (album covers) which it is currently possible to use in most circumstances editors would want to use them (in album articles).

It's very frustrating to be working on a BLP and not to be able to illustrate the person's physical appearance because a hardline-NFCC patroller insists that a free image is technically possible. There are a number of notable people who are either notoriously camera shy or who work overtime to control access to photographs of themselves, and free images just don't exist. I feel ghoulish just waiting for the person to die so I can add a non-free image to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's all about the potential of getting that free image, which is required by the Foundation. They specifically laid out the example of a non-free photograph of a living person of the case we shouldn't allow. Yes, it sucks, but it also prevents a potential slippery slope that if you start letting in edge cases, more and more editors will want to claim this type of exemption. In response to @Baseball Bugs: about when album covers can be used, please see the footnote on WP:NFCI#1 which links to three previous RFCs about this type of use that clearly shows consensus is for this piece of "implicit marketing and branding" , even if the cover is never discussed in text. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That's probably still better than the serious suggestion that a hand-drawn sketch is an appropriate replacement for a photograph of an aircraft... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Masem, it's unclear to me why you say "this is the only place the album is covered" isn't a valid argument. Could you elaborate? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The NFCI#1 provision for covers to identify works like albums is presumed that there is significant discussion (critical discussion, not just rote facts) of the album. This aligns with the album itself being notable and thus allowing for a standalone article where that significant discussion occurs. In this case, the album does not appear to be notable, (not enough to have a standalone), and the "discussion" of it is simply the factual nature it exists - fine to include on the musician's page, but that changes how NFCC applies. Without any significant discussion, the standard provisions for NFCI#1 no longer exist, and now one has to have a more concrete reason to include the cover image for the album in this case. I don't know immediately of any existing cases where this has occurred, but I recognize that there is a possibility for it (eg maybe the person was also a painter and painted the cover image themselves and shows an example of their work?) I don't think that exists in this case. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And that takes us back to the point that nearly all LP or single covers in the articles about the records are merely decorations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with you, but that's why its important to recognize that across 3 RFCs, consensus has claims this is not the case. (I will also note that the Foundation does actually suggest its okay for illustrating culturally-significant works). I'd love to say "nope, not usable" but that would be removing content against strong consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Then what's so special about this one that it needs to be deleted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, as explained previously, the copyrighted image is in the biography of the musical artist, rather than in a freestanding article about the album itself (which does not appear to be notable). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If album covers are copyrighted, then why are they being used for decorations all over the place? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You can call them "decorations" all you want, but policy and long-standing consensus allow for the use of low resolution images of album covers, book covers and movie posters in articles about notable albums, books and movies. "Illustrations" is a better word, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Because, as mentioned, it is (entirely reasonable) consensus that using the image of an album cover, book cover, or film poster to illustrate the article on the album, book, or film is a proper use of fair use as it enhances the encylopedic value of the article and adds to the knowledge of the reader, as the image is both in context and provides context, while a random "this is an album this artist produced" image does not. (tldr: Bugs, this isn't the rabbit-hole to die in.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreeing here that this idea that we allow articles on albums, books, people (sometimes) to have non-free pictures of the topic of the article and generally not elsewhere unless discussed in reasonable detail in the text of the article. This is the compromise we've reached. I personally think that compromise is too strict and hurts the encyclopedia a bit (e.g. "decorative" things like album covers in a musician's article can be informative about the nature of the time period, what "vibe" the musician is trying to project, etc.). But it is largely where we are. And sometimes it's worth it to have fairly bright lines. That said, once contested, FFD is probably the right venue. It is 99% likely to get removed from the article. Suggest closing this discussion and letting the FFD proceed. Hobit (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If you can find sources that justify the (second) use of an album cover in a musican's article that discuss in some depth how the cover reflects the musician's style at that point, that's fine that is greatly enhanced with the illustration present, that's great - that's a usable case. But you have to have sourced discussion, not just because you feel it is important. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I entirely agree that's how we do things. I just don't personally think it's the right thing to do. But it is our standard procedure. Still worth discussion at FFD IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

A few points that have been lost as this discussion has gone offtrack in various ways:

1. Walter Görlitz has claimed that the use rationale for the image at issue "has not been contested". That statement is plainly false. Both Jo-Jo Eumerus and Marchjuly, in response to Walter's initial post on my talk page, explained why the use rationale was invalid. And I agreed with them. Walter then posted "according to you, the FUR is invalid".[1] It's damned hard to take Walter's contrary argument here as good faith, since he'd said precisely the opposite a short time before.
2. It is evident that the use in the bio does not have a valid, article-specific use rationale. Walter simply took the use rationale for the individual album article and changed the article involved to the musician bio, even though it was evident that use in the bio was not within the scope of that use rationale. WP:NFCCE calls for (not simply allows, but calls for) summary removal of the nonfree image whenever there is no valid, article-specific use rationale. Walter's position that prior discussion is required is contrary to well-established, explicit policy.
3. See the discussion at User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz/Archive_2#April_2012, where it was determined that removal of an album cover in parallel circumstances was exempt from 3RR limits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The key point and still true today is that the NFC use has to be obviously wrong. If the image lacked mention of the article name, for example, that's obviously wrong and removal would be exempt from 3RR. This is not the case here - it is a disputed use and rationale, but it is not "obvious". No one would be allowed to edit war to remove or keep it. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, the 2012 "parallel" that is being cited is a false equivalency. Those images had no FUR, which is a specific procedural issue that cannot be debated. The degree to which an album cover "makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the [artist's] article," on the other hand, is inherently abstract and subjective, and that's literally why edit warring policy refers users to FFD. It's not a convincing FUR, but the fact that it could be argued invalidates the claim that it's an objectively-unquestionable violation. This is no different from anything else. If there's a dispute, proceed to the appropriate forum, and seek a consensus to resolve the dispute. It's as simple as that. Don't edit war and then run to ANI if you're not even going to attempt to approach the issue in an appropriate manner. Swarm ♠ 20:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't piss in my tent and tell me it's raining, Swarm.It's false, and you know perfectly well it's false, to accuse me of "not even going to attempt to approach the issue in an appropriate manner" and then "run to ANI". At least you should. My initial post here pointed to the discussion on my talk page where three editors, myself explained why the use was improper and the use rationale was invalid. Walter did not respond on the substantive issues, and after waiting more than a day, I implemented the consensus on my talk page. Being an admin does not entitle you to fabricate facts to denigrate an editor you disagree with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That is a...bizarre response, to say the least. Wolfowitz, regarding the actual dispute, I've already pointed out that I agree with you. So I'm not sure what you think I'm fabricating due to some sort of disagreement. You were involved in an edit war, and you came to ANI seeking one-sided enforcement against your opponent, implying that you were "in the right". All we've done is refer you to the relevant policy (which happens to not support the one-sided admin intervention you're seeking), and point you to the correct venue to hash out your dispute. You're the one who ignored the input you've received, chose to continue to argue, and even falsely cited a "parallel" situation from 2012 that both me and Masem took the time to examine and explain to you why it's not the same. If your goal was to "avoid timesinks", you've failed spectacularly. Here we are, two days later, with a ridiculously bloated ANI thread that is achieving nothing, and you yourself so worked up that you're lashing out at some random replying admin for "[fabricating] facts to denigrate an editor you disagree with". Don't you think that's a little irrational? Maybe you feel "treated like dirt" by administrators because you interpret genuinely neutral disagreement from random strangers on the internet as some sort of malicious personal slight? You need to get over this, the policy does not support the action you're requesting, this is not a personal issue against you, I don't even know you! Swarm ♠ 21:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you need to get over yourself and your little tin sherriff's admin badge. You're ignoring the fact that the issue was discussed on my talk page (the venue chosen by Walter), consensus was reached against his position, a consensus that line up with clear language on an NFC policy/guideline page and the instructions for the template involved, and that Walter set off an edit war by insisting, in effect, "Just because you have consensus to remove the image doesn't allow you to remove the image". And I didn't "run to ANI", as you so plainly misstate simple facts; I waited until consensus was established and Walter's refusal to abide by it was evident. It's not raining. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, I haven't commented in an administrative capacity at all, so the implication that I'm waving the mop around or something kind of falls flat. It's telling that you would personally attack someone for being an administrator, even when they're not acting in an administrative capacity and never even hinted at being an administrator. Secondly, I think if your position was as strong as you think it is, we'd be discussing sanctions, and not humoring your personal attacks and hyperbolic idioms. Look, it's obvious to all from your section header and original post that you framed this as a copyright issue. You didn't get the reaction you wanted, so now that we've discussed copyright policy, to death, and established that it's not a copyright issue, you're saying he edit-warred against a local consensus on your talk page. In other words, you're reporting run-of-the-mill edit warring that literally is happening at any given time? Seems disingenuous, as you chose to bring it here and not the edit warring noticeboard (if your original post was accurate, it would have been a mere matter of procedure to get WG blocked). That makes it look like you either twisted the situation in your original post to make it sound worse than it was, or you're twisting it now because your original complaint failed to get the desired reaction. Regardless, it's too little, too late. You can't just change your narrative after a report at AN/I gets rejected, particularly after degenerating into vicious personal attacks. You're just discrediting yourself in a forum that gets a lot of attention. Poor show. Are you even reading this thread? Tell me, is it going anywhere? And lastly, even ignoring everything else, and only focusing on the specific behavioral complaint in your previous comment: getting some editors to agree with you on your talk page and then going straight to AN/I isn't dispute resolution. As you should know, and has already been explained here, when you run into disputes that aren't resolvable locally, you proceed to a formal venue to resolve the dispute. In this case, you didn't do so. You went to AN/I seeking an editing restriction. So, I'm sorry you're so personally offended by my saying so, but that is indeed what I'm referring to when I say you "ran to AN/I". It appears that, upon getting into a lame edit war, your first step was to report them to admins. Not a good look. Swarm ♠ 05:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You really need to get over yourself and the negligible competence you're demonstrating here; your little tin badge doesn't entitle you to create "alternative facts" and act on them. We begin with a long, long, long-settled issue: nonfree album covers can't be used as general illustrations in artist biographies. This was established by multiple RFCs, written into NFC guidelines, reconfirmed by extensive discussions, written into the instructions for the specific template Walter invoked, and, in this specific case confirmed by discussion and the venue Walter chose for discussion. That's not merely a "local consensus", as you pretend, and that's not a position a reasonable, competent editor would take. Your comments also show that you do not understand the difference between copyright policy (making sure Wikipedia follows governing law) and nonfree content policy (implementing the WMF's commitment towards minimizing the use of nonfree content here, even when the use may be allowed under copyright law. This is a basic error that shows how unreliable your opinions are. And nobody who's familiar with my opinions would be surprised to learn that I believe that achieving admin status here is deserving of any particular respect, but saying that is hardly a "vicious personal attack" against admins. For you to say that is dishonest. And it's still not raining. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(←) There's the thing, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. If you simply believed that being an admin does not make you deserving of respect by default, as you suggest, then that would be perfectly fine. But that's not what you said. You said that I need to get over the ego I have from being an administrator. It's right there. You said I have a "little tin badge", multiple times, even though being an admin had absolutely nothing to do with anything I was saying, or how I said it. Your approach that I'm disagreeing with you because I have some sort of ego that's too big because I'm an administrator is quite literally an ad hominem personal attack. You're attacking an administrator in a report you made to administrators. You're reducing my policy-based input to my administrator permission, just because I disagreed with your request for policy reasons. You're basically crying "admin abuse!" whilst openly proclaiming a grudge against admins by default in your signature. It's not cute, it's not sympathetic, and it's not credible. The basis of WP:NPA is to not focus on contributors, by attacking my administrative status you're making personal attacks. Your position is simply not credible. You came here citing copyright concerns, got rejected, then cited a specific local consensus, got rejected again, and only then claim that you're enforcing longstanding overarching consensus. It's just not a believable tactic, and even if you took that approach from the start, would not alter the fundamental point that you're not enforcing unambiguous copyright infringement. Your repeated accusations that I'm being dishonest, or that I'm some rogue, unhinged, ego-driven admin who doesn't actually understand policy are all well and good, because we are not governed by the whims of a single admin, but by consensus. And the consensus here clearly doesn't support your request for a sanction against WG, in fact, not a single editor has even seconded your proposal after all this time. If this was about a good faith content dispute, you'd have let this go by now because the consensus here is literally not with you at all and never has been from the start. Swarm ♠ 06:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Swarm and Masem. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was pinged so I guess I might as well respond. I saw the discussion on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz user's talk and have already responded there. I also have commented in the FFD, so I'll try not to repeat everything I wrote there. Basically, the image was being used in a stand-alone article about the album, but that article was subsequently merged into the artist's article as a resulf of an AfD discusison. There was no discussion as to how the merge would affect the non-free use of the file in the AfD, so it appears to have been assumed that the same justification for non-free use would be just as acceptable for the artist's article and the only "change" made to the rationale was to simply change the article name in the rationale.

I think HW's assessment of non-free use in general is pretty good and in this particular case was correct; so, I can also see being bold and removing the file once in the belief that doing so would be uncontentious and save the community some time discussing it by simply letting the file be deleted per WP:F5. Personally, I think it probably would've been better to tag the file with {{rfu}} or {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, or maybe even prod it for deletion instead; however, once it was re-added it probably should have gone to FFD for discussion. I think any of these things would've most likely led to the same result (deletion/removal of the file) and probably prevented this from ending up at ANI.

In general, I think this kind of non-free issue is not uncommon when it comes to merges, so it might be better to provide better guidance about it somewhere in WP:MERGE to make others aware that merges which include the moving of non-free content should consider any possible WP:NFCC issues. Non-free use is and never has been automatic and trying to argue WP:JUSTONE is in some ways more of a problem, in my opinion, than not having any rationale at all because the latter could be just due to a lack of knowledge of NFCCP, whereas the former seems to indicate a clear misunderstanding of the NFCCP. As for the other issue about the list of performers mentioned in the article, I have no particular comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I mean when I write that the FUR "has not been contested". Until a short while ago it stood on the image's page. Any other argument is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

...and at that point, it became contested. WP:LONGTIME isn't an argument to avoid only at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, see WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED as to why it sometimes takes time for someone to notice a problem with the way a non-free file is being used in a particular article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The fair use rationale was in-place, as was the image, so stating that there was no fair use rationale was simply wrong, when what they really meant to say was the fair use rationale doesn't apply.

And, yes LONGTIME is only an argument to avoid in AfDs, as that's what that essay states.

And I'm not is arguing that NOBODYCOMPLAINED (another deletion discussion argument), I'm arguing that the editor who removed the image did do so in the wrong place. If fair use rationales can be ignored by a select group of editors, and they don't even offer a community WP:CONSENSUS for doing so, when a FfD discussion or removal of the FUR is the correct way to address the issue, then Wikipedia is on its way to anarchy. I know we are allowed to WP:IGNORE all rules, but when it becomes disruptive and results in a misplaced ANI discussion, it's rubbish.

And no, when the editor removed an image from an article that had a fair use rationale claiming that there wasn't a fair use rationale, it wasn't contested. It was lunacy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Just becuase the "only an essay" is titled '...to avoid at deletion discussions' does not mean 'only at'. Walter, given that in this one comment alone I'm seeing heavy wikilawyering, thinly veiled accusations of a cabal, and a borderline personal attack on the editor who removed the image, I'm going to be honest with you here and advise considering the First Law of Holes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Walter: Maybe you feel WP:UNCHALLENGED is more appropriate, even though it basically says the same thing as LONGTIME and NOBODYCOMPLAINED? Regardless, when the album article was merged into the artist's article, you made this edit to the file's rationale most likely as part of the post-AfD cleanup. Perhaps, you just assumed that doing so would not be contentious and it wasn't until Hullaballoo Wolfowitz came along. Since he reviews quite a lot of non-free files, I'm assuming he looks at their rationales and assesses their validity, and then boldly removes those which he strongly believes are not NFCCP compliant. Once I again, I think he was correct in doing so in this particular case and I might have done the same thing because, even though I'm sure you made it good faith, your tweak was basically a cosmetic change which did nothing to address the new way in which the file was being used. After that, things sort of spiraled out of control and would've could've should've been avoided if either side an chosen a different tact. It seems from all of the comments made above the the worst that is going to come out of this for either of you is a WP:TROUT; so, my suggestion to both of you would just be to let this go and move on. Perhaps in the future, you can be a little more aware of non-free content usage issues such as this and HW can be a little more aware that choosing CSD, Prod, or FFD can sometimes be a better approach to dealing with NFCCP violations which are not NFCC#10c issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A major part of the problem here is that Walter doesn't understand the difference between the nonfree use rationale and the licensing tag (even though the non-free use rationale has "use rationale" in its title, and the licensing tag is placed under the header "Licensing". And CSD, Prod, and FFD are generally not appropriate venues to discuss most of the violations I remove, because the clear majority of them have been images that are suitable for one article where they have been inserted, but not others. Far too many editors here assume that because an image is acceptable in one article it is suitable for general use. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

FFD is no longer only for discussing the deletion of images; it is now also for discussing removal of non-free images since WP:NFCR was merged into FFD about a year ago, and the name has been changed to "Files for discussion" from "Files for deletion". (Just for reference, WP:PUF was also merged into FFD around the same time.) There is also {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, which is technically a deletion template, but can probably also be used to dispute a particular FUR as well without deleting the file. I think one possible problem with removing non-free files that have only a single use is that the file is now an orphan which results in a de-facto deletion per WP:F5 in five days, unless it is re-added to some article. In some cases this may be an acceptable outcome, and the deleted file can most likely be undeleted at a later date if someone "contests" the F5 deletion; however, if a file with bad rationale or no rationale is removed and then subsequently re-added by someone who believes they have "fixed" the problem, then maybe it's better to discuss things from that point onward instead of engaging in endless reverting. Copyright tags are not FURs as you rightly point out; in fact, most of the non-free license templates say exactly such a thing. Moreover, file's lacking any FUR at all can be tagged for speedy per WP:F6, and those lacking a FUR for some uses can be removed per WP:NFCCE or tagged with {{di-missing some article links}}. In this paricular case, however, the file did have a FUR when you first removed the file; it was (still is) a bad one in my opinion, but it was technically an FUR. So, while being bold and removing it the first time was probably fine, perhaps it would been better to try another approach after it was re-added. FWIW, I completely forgot that I too had removed the file with this edit, and that it was subsequently re-added here. I don't know why, but for some reason I either didn't notice the re-addition, or just assumed good faith and didn't look at it carefully enough. However, if I had decided to pursue the matter further at that point, I probably would've taken the file to FFD instead of removing it again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be really nice if HW understood any of the above and acted accordingly, instead of assuming that whenever he decides that an image is in violation of NFC, that is the end of it, no further discussion is warranted, so the image can be removed, and he is then justified in edit warring if reverted. He's been doing this for a long time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Wolfowitz has been enforcing NFC policy for a "long time", consistently, and his practices have been repeatedly confirmed as consistent with, and supported by, the governing policy and guidelines. You, on the other hand, pushed to include a patent NFC violation just last week at Thomas Hammes. And you knew you were violating policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to show me that trick where you read my mind, it would come in handy sometimes.

In point of fact, I did not (and do not) believe that the image was in violation of policy, but I gave up fighting you because you just keep on edit warring the image out with nasty edit summaries -- typical of your mode of behavior. You've decided that the image is in violation, so you don't have to discuss it, or bring it to FFD, you can just delete it and keep whomping the other guy on the head until they give up. As the discussion here shows (especially your colloquy with Swarm) you are very special, and the rules simply do not apply to you.

In your sig you write that you have been "[t]reated like dirt by many administrators since 2006." Maybe that's true, I don't know -- I can't pretend to be inside your skin and read your mind as you seem to think you can read mine, but what is clearly true is that you treat your fellow editors like dirt all the time, and when you're called on it, you get even nastier, as this very discussion will atest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rather than yammering on and on and on, saying nothing more than WOLFOWITZ BAD WOLFOWITZ BAD WOLFOWITZ BAD BAD BAD, you might deign to explain to us how you can reasonably believe your proposed image use is correct, even though it flies in the face of an essentially unbroken string string of RFCs, MCQ discussions, FFD outcomes, and other talk page discussions. That's much more relevant than ranting about my signature. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

In the famous words of Popeye: "I yam what I yam".

No, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you don't get to all-of-a-sudden seem interested in having a discussion^** after arrogantly and precipitously slamming the door in another editor's face earlier. I think that you need to come to the realization that you are not the be-all and end-all of NFC policing. Once again, this very discussion shows that you aren't, and that your personal absolutist interpretation of that policy is not shared by other very significant editors in the community. Were I you, I would start looking forward to a new way of dealing with other editors in which you treat them as equals, and not as ignorant peons subject to your imperious will.

Now, I've said what I want to say, in as direct a way as I can without -- I hope -- violating NPA, and you've said what you want to say, repeatedly. Is there really any need to continue this colloquy between us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

** Well, not so much a "discussion," as a demand from you: "Explain yourself!". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I am gonna be honest and say I have been wondering how HW's sig is not a violation of WP:POLEMIC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think he changed it to "many administrators" from just plain "administrators" fairly recently.

I dunno if it violates POLEMIC or not, but you gotta admit it's a pretty neat catch-22: if you're an admin, and you complain about it, it just goes to illustrate that he's right! If you don't complain about it, and he isn't forced to change it, he gets to display his sense of being oppressed by "the man" to everyone. Nifty! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Break 3

Regardless of the merits of this individual case, it seems to me that any NFC rationale that is contested in good faith by editors in good standing should result in the image being removed pending discussion and consensus on Talk or an appropriate noticeboard. Edit warring material of questionable copyright status exposes the project to potential legal jeopardy. The onus is surely on the persona sserting the fair use claim, to achieve consensus that it is valid. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy, that sounds great, but the material being discussed here: album covers and book covers, while potentially failing NFC, would never fail American fair use practice, and would be extremely unlikely to subject the WMF to any legal jeopardy. Since their usage is strictly a matter of internal rules, there's no harm in leaving them in place while a discussion goes on. Obvious copyright violations which would never survive fair use are another matter altogether, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...questionable copyright status exposes the project to potential legal jeopardy" - that kind of fear-based buzzphrase is exactly the kind of approach to copyright issues that is unhelpful. The notion that good faith fair use disagreements should default to "remove" short of a formalized "keep" consensus is baseless, IMO. The project has never been harmed over such a dispute, and we don't, and have never needed, to take some sort of chilled approach whenever someone disagrees with a FUR. In fact, the very act of implying that there will be legal consequences is expressly disallowed, in part because it creates a WP:CHILLINGEFFECT that interferes with the fundamental consensus-building process from which this project is governed. That's not how we operate. Unambiguous copyright infringement is obviously banned and we are all mandated to remove such material without prejudice. However, that should not obscure the fact that fair use is allowed, and when fair use is disputed, it should be handled no differently than any other dispute. We do not err on the side of one party in the dispute, in policy or in practice, just because they believe that a FUR is not valid. Period. It's become obvious over the course of this thread that we're not here dealing with a copyright dispute. We're dealing with an out of control editor. They came here seeking one-sided enforcement over a good faith content dispute. When they received a moderate, policy-based response, rather than a sanction against their opponent, they lashed out with personal attacks that would quite simply not be tolerated from someone who is not a power user. This is literally a nonstarter ANI thread that was rejected from the start, and yet is still going because we're having to grapple with the reporter's ego. Swarm ♠ 06:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• What a farrago of nonsense. It's eminently clear you don't understand Wikipedia's nonfree content policy, which provides that advocates of retaining disputed nonfree content "will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria" of WP:NFCC and that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". It is hardly irrational to read that this policy language, particularly the term "convincing", as calling for the result you absurdly call "baseless". Indeed. in one of the first disputes over NFCC I was engaged in, an admin recognized as expert on the policy said "Once he [Wolfowitz] challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd".[2] As Guy noted above, this is the best way to handle these disputes, given the strong policy language requiring consensus support to retain disputed nonfree images/ As for your argument that "the very act of implying that there will be legal consequences is expressly disallowed" is discussion of a policy expressly characterized as a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" is palpably absurd, as is underscored by you failure to cite any policy declaring this wholly nonexistent "disallowance". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Farrago". Whatever else might be said about HW, he's got a great vocab. Still not getting the point, though, I'm afraid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that if an image's rationale is contested and doesn't fail the immediate problematic NFCC ones (like NFCC#2 where a press image is used without discussing the image itself, or a completely missing rationale or license), images should be kept in place while FFD takes place, as it is often necessary to understand the image's use in context of the article to validate the rationale. In that period while it is under FFD, we can call to fair use should a legal question come up as to why it is kept - the whole license and rationale aspect of NFCC is to satisfy the WMF's goal for free content, and does nothing directly towards arguing a fair use defense, through the process of developing those rationales is to help editors to think about image use that better complies with a fair use defense. --Masem (t) 17:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Questions about a new action by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Questions: Is HW targeting me because of my opinions expressed in this discussion? [3]. Why, in the aftermath of this discussion, didn't HW take this to FFD instead of simply deleting it? On what basis did HW reach his unlilateral decision to delete? Did HW actually do any research on the subject matter to determine that the photo was "obviously replaceable", or is he relying solely on his own personal knowledge, or lack thereof? Is HW aware of the extreme rareness of instrument, and does he know whether one actually exists anywhere for a photo to be taken? Is HW using common sense in this action, and is he listening to the voice of the community? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, and you know that's not what happened. You've been sniping at me -- note all the personal innuendos directed at me above -- following NFCC disputes at, as I recall, Gene Kelly and Jane Morgan (actress). I do a lot of NFCC enforcement, 99+% of which is entirely uncontroversial. The removal you're complaining about is an obvious no-brainer, an indisputable violation of NFCC#1. It's obviously replaceable, and you damn well know it. You've made no effort to show that the musical instrument is "extinct" and that no pictures can be taken of one. That preposterous claim is belied by recent Youtube videos of people playing the instrument

Yes, particularly given the massive swath of "no NFC in BLP" edits in their contribution, some which are not proper (eg [4] is a perfectly acceptable use of a non-free image for a BLP as it is the photograph itself that lent towards the subject's notability.) This is unacceptable behavior. --Masem (t) 17:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It is clear from the cited article text that the subject's notability came from the caption, not the picture, and that the essential information is conveyed by test alone. This is a textbook failure of NFCC#8. The argument that "the photograph itself that lent towards the subject's notability" justifies nonfree image use has long been rejected; it was, for example, a standard failed justification for including Playboy centerfolds in Playmate bios. And this is a news agency photo, requiring a particularly compelling justification. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one just found just through a random spot-check [5] where on the image's page, there's a box that says that the image free-replacability was already reviewed and determined non-replacable (due to it being a picture of said BLP in their youth). --Masem (t) 17:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong here. The "review" was more than a decade ago, and rests on an argument that has been solidly rejected over the ensuing time. The claim was that just showing an image of the article subject in his youth justified a nonfree use -- an argument that is clearly incompatible with NFCC requirements, particularly in the bio of a politician/government official whose notability has exactly zero relation to his notability. The dead hand of long-abandoned policy does not limit what we do today. It's astonishing to see an admin making that srgument. And the image has no source information, and has been marked for more than 10 years as lacking a valid use rationale. There is no case whatever for allowing it to remain. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem when one takes a hardline NFC approach is going to end up the same place where BetaCommand did. NFC is an important policy, there are a handful of clear lines where non-free images can be problematic, but many of the cases are borderline in that gray area, that might need just a nudge in improvement. What is very much unreasonable is the process of achieving NFCC image deletion where it is in the grey area (as the case for the two examples I noted) by 1) removing the image from the article 2) anticipating no one will revert that and 3) waiting 7 days for an orphaned NFC deletion. Most of these should be processed through an FFD approach. Not all of them would be kept, but I think your current approach is catching far too much in false positions to not be helpful. --Masem (t) 07:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"And the image ... has been marked for more than 10 years as lacking a valid use rationale." That's not true. The image has had a fair-use rationale since it was uploaded (apparently from Mongolian wiki) to EN-wiki in 2006: [6], and the fair-use rationale was reviewed and confirmed valid by an administrator, Quadell, in 2007: [7], [8]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree this all sounds exactly like Betacommand, and has from the beginning. I'm glad someone else mentioned it before I did. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That in no way reflects NFC policy. WP:NFC specifically authorizes removal of images from articles, and the Betacommand ruling specifically stated that "a non-free image may be removed from a particular page if it does not satisfy the NFCC with respect to its being used on that page." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is freely editable, and there is not one word of policy or guideline that privileges nonfree images from ordinary editing. You don't cite any, because there isn't any. And there is no need to relitigate long-settled issues every time someone wants to violate NFCC standards. Are you seriously arguing that not having a use rationale for 10 years is a borderline case or grey area? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The key word in the NFC language is "should", not "must", which is how I see your justification these actions. The only "must" is that images completely lacking rationales or licenses, or orphaned out, can be semi-speeded removed. But anything away from those, we need to handle with more care. The scenario around Betacommand's first two bans instructs us to avoid being hard-nosed and jerks around NFCC. More specifically, there needs to be a lot more human element involved here. I do not think you're using a bot or anything like that, but the option to simply remove an image that you think is not appropriate, and doing that in an automatic manner (eg you're running these down alphabetically, implying a use of a tool like AWB to at least identify them), that's going to lead to another BetaCommand like situation, which no one wants to see. — Masem 09:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

You know, the fact that the "key word" is "should" is a rather clear indication that the governing policy sanctions the action. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

For example, the image at File:Elbegdorj.JPG (removed in the second diff) clearly has a rationale from ten years ago. It's just not in a templated form, but we do not require rationales to be in a templated form at all. Is it a strong rationale? Not one I'd be proud of, but it is hitting the meat of what NFCC requires, and as such, removing it claiming it an NFC violation is extremely bad form. In the first case, while it may be a press photo, the combination of the photo and caption are the subject of why the person was notabile, this would be a fair allowance in considering NFCC#2. Basically, you cannot just look at a BLP' page and go "nope, no non-free at all", which is what your recent block of contributions, in addition to your statements here, looks like. --Masem (t) 09:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you're just making things up. There is no policy or guideline that in any way says that an editor can't remove a nonfree image from an article where they believe it is improperly used. There is nothing in policy or guidelines which requires any discussion before editing with regard to nonfree images, and certainly nothing that requires going to a formal process like FFD. And you're violating WP:AGF when you accuse me of "just look[ing] at a BLP' page and go[ing] "nope, no non-free at all". That's a falsification. You should know better, you've been here long enough. As I pointed out, just a few weeks ago, my image-related editing was reviewed by multiple admins, who fount it entirely appropriate. You don't get to unilaterally overrule them, or by fiat prohibit an editing practice that's been approved for years. Why don't you honestly review the utter crap complaint from BMK that started this, because it's absolutely clear that the image involved is replaceable, and that the complaint is just a pretext for harassing me. Slog through the ten days of useless discussion at Talk:Jane Morgan (actress) caused by BMK falsely claiming an article subject had died in order to slip an easily replaceable nonfree image into the bio. The whole point of this contretemps is to undermine NFC enforcement, and the governing policy states unequivocally that consensus processes aren't allowed to do that. You really should know better. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, you are making up policies to suit yourself. WP:NFCCE specifically states: "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." You are currently removing images that do have fair use rationales for the articles they are in, and beyond that, you are edit-warring to keep them removed.

In terms of the Betacommand ruling, you conveniently failed to quote the rest of that section, which reads:

7) Images and other media that do not meet the requirements described by the non-free content criteria should be tagged to show how they are lacking and the uploader(s) should be notified. Unless the non-compliance with policy is blatant and cannot be fixed, the uploader or any other interested editor should be provided with a reasonable amount of time (generally seven days under current policy) within which to address the problem with the image. If the discrepancies are not resolved after a suitable time period the media may be deleted. Similarly, a non-free image may be removed from a particular page if it does not satisfy the NFCC with respect to its being used on that page. [9]. In other words, like everyone else, if an image has a fair-use rationale for the page it is used on, and you don't like it, you need to follow procedures just like everyone else, such as tagging, notifying the uploader, and filing at WP:FFD. If you continue making unilateral removals of images that have fair use rationales, I think this is going to end up at ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted all three of those removals (pointed out by BMK and Masem), since all three have fair-use rationales for the particular article. Should a topic-ban on [unilaterally] removing images from articles be proposed? Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• The extreme WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior HW is displaying in this overall thread (which started innocuously enough), even towards people and administrators who agree with him but want him to follow appropriate protocols/procedures, is frankly shocking, and deserving of a boomerang. I will close by stating that neither usertalk nor unilateral removal are the place/way to determine article-content or image-use consensus, and that WP:FFD (or at the very least article talk as a first step) is the place to determine image-use consensus. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The accusations here are incoherent. We have one claim that HW's edit is retributive against BMK, and a second claim that he's violating .. some other policy by making multiple similar edits on entirely different pages (that BMK hasn't edited). The content dispute on whether/when it is fair use to include images should be handled somewhere other than ANI. I would encourage everyone to let this thread die and engage in civil discussion of the content issues in other forums. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, if you don't know what you are talking about and aren't familiar with the policies and procedures involved, then it's best not to comment; it just creates clutter and distraction. HW is making unilateral decisions in violation of established procedure and existing and posted fair-use rationales. Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've read the whole damn thread, I'm familiar with copyright law, and I know most of the Wikipedia policies. If you want a trial, file an ARBCOM case. I don't see either disruptions or WP:HOUNDING from HW here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you "don't see either disruptions or WP:HOUNDING from HW here", that's fine, just say so. Other, more experienced, editors (including several admins) see considerable problems in both HW's behavior on this thread and in his ensuing or related edits. When anyone files at ANI, their behavior is scrutinized as well. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously I have a dog in this race, but I do think it's time that admins consider that HW's absolutist position regarding NFC, his unwillingness to follow the common interpretation of the way to go about removing a potential NFC violation when it's disputed, and his willingness to edit war as if his removal was one of the set immunities from WP:EW... well, shouldn't he be blocked for this behavior? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not. Don't pretend your "common interpretation" represents anything like consensus. Just five weeks ago, the exact issue was raised on this board, and the UNANIMOUS conclusion was that "Multiple admins have looked at this and found nothing actionable about the respondent's [Wolfowitz's] activities. Admin Black Kite said "I've looked through Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's non-free image editing and every single one that I've looked at so far is completely in line with our non-free image policy". Admin Boing! said Zebedee added that "I've examined a few recent removals of non-free images from articles, and all appeared to be in line with policy to me too".[10] I've been doing NFCC enforcement in the same way for nearly a decade, and my approach has been consistently upheld -- I don't think that even a dozen cases, out of thousands and thousands, have been genuinely controversial. BMK is not really interested in complying with NFCC policy -- he's said as much at Talk:Jane Morgan, where we suffered through 10 days of pointless discussion because BMK insisted that use of a nonfree image of a living person was justified by WP:IAR. His goal is to keep NFCC from being effectively enforced by bogging policy-compliant editors down in time-wasting discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If by "unanimous" you mean by two of the only three people who replied to the thread before it was closed one hour after it was opened, then yes it was "unanimous" [11]. It was hardly an exhaustive review, and failed/closed because the OP was apparently deemed problematic (and also didn't provide any diffs). Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If he persists, yes, blocked or topic banned. Softlavender (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternately, I suppose, the matter could be taken to ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No, not before all other options/efforts at dispute resolution were exhausted. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• NFC *is* one of the hardline rules we are required to follow. With the possible exception of the photo (where the photo is the story - while the caption is the important bit, in context the photo provides the emotional impact) which is at least arguable either way, HW is entirely correct on the others. NFC is not a 'leave it and argue about it' situation. Its 'remove it and argue about it until consensus is that it satisfies our non-free criteria and then it can be replaced'. As with any other situation that has potential legal implications. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Only in death: I guess you didn't read any of this thread? I'm not sure where exactly you're getting the notion of "remove it until consensus is otherwise", to the degree that you'd be willing to come onto ANI and deign to declare to everyone that this is standard operating procedure, as if it were a fact, but that's actually not reflected anywhere in policy. That's reflected only in irrational copyright paranoia, and it's actually very unhelpful to tell people that "legal considerations" mandate a chilling effect. Especially since you portrayed your misguided opinion as a fact. I respected you as an editor, but you seriously discredited yourself. Sorry, but you're in the wrong here, and it's not even something that's debatable. The vague and illusive red herring that is the phrase "legal considerations" is not supposed to chill standard procedure, and that is literally why any users who attempt to assert legal consequences are prohibited from editing, even when a direct, sincere and credible legal threat is made. Disputes are not weighted over "legal considerations". We do not bend or break over "legal considerations". We do not supplant consensus in favor of "legal considerations". I'm not aware of any instance in which this has happened, but if consensus disagrees with the law, the Foundation overrules it. The community is not the Foundation's legal defense team. We're expected to abide by overarching consensus, with the only other boundaries being those set by the Foundation due to legal considerations. @Only in death: you're not citing limits imposed by your higher-ups. You're citing nonexistent limits brought about by a non-understanding of copyright law and WMF policy. Good faith assistance is appreciated, but misinformed lecturing at ANI is roundly frowned upon. Swarm ♠ 10:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NFCC and specifically WP:NFCCE Go read it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, go read it: WP:NFCCE specifically states: "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." All of the images we've been discussing that HW is unilaterally removing have fair-use rationales for the articles he is removing them from. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The key point of emphasis in NFCCE is not only that a file have a non-free use rationale, but that it have a valid non-free use rationale. If HW is removing a non-free file because he believes that its non-free use rationale is not valid per WP:JUSTONE, then that seems to be permissible. If nobody re-adds the file, then the removal is not contentious. Many files have bogus/questionable non-free use rationales, and starting an FFD discussion for each and everyone of these files seems unnecessary. (FWIW, I've seen people add rationales for templates, drafts, userpages, etc.) HW does do lots of non-free content checking, and I'm assuming he's evaluating these files based upon his experience and on previously established consensus; therefore, being bold in such a way does not seem problematic. Problems happen, however, when files are re-removed after being re-added; at that point, I think it would be better to (1) prod the file for deletion (if it only has one use); (2) tag the file with a speedy tag such as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} (if it has more than one use and fails NFCC#8 for one of those uses) or {{rfu}} (if it fails NFCC#1); or (3) just go straight to FFD. The file was re-added because someone disagreed with its removal (even if they don't leave an edit sum explaining why), so at that point it's probably better, at least in my opinion, to treat it like a de-prod and explore other options to deletion by F5 by getting more feedback to discuss the validity of the rationale and avoid any possible edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Being WP:BOLD is fine. What is not fine is edit warring when the bold edit is disputed, instead of taking it to WP:FFD. Also, while HW does do a great deal of NFC work, there have been enough examples of his missing the boat that his judgment alone is not sufficient justification for removals. He needs to back off a little, and leave open the possibility of his being wrong, something that he does not seem to admit as conceivable. In my view, the problems here do not lie in the policy, but in HW's application of it, and in the attitude which accompanies those actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Break 5/closure

Frankly, I'm shocked that this is still going on. We're literally dealing with a report that was discredited from the start, and that no admin is taking seriously at the moment. This is not a criticism, but an observation. And yet, 2.5 weeks later, in a manner I've never seen here, here we are, still pettily discussing this non-issue, disagreeing after everything has been discussed to death. It's clear by now that no admin feels that this is actionable, and no new policy argument mandating renewed discussion has been/is being made. After 2 1/2 weeks it seems evident that no admin is taking this as a serious report in need of action, and in the interest of WP:NVC, I'm closing this to avoid any further continued timesinks, which was cited as the reason for the original report itself. I recognize that the reporter feels very strongly about this situation, and that they have personally attacked me for having an unreasonable ego as an administrator, and as such I will point out that this is not an admin supervote they're required to accept. This is simply a judgment call that it appears obvious that no other administrator, nor the community, will take preventative measures. If anyone wishes to escalate the issue even further, you may make a case to dispute this close itself. Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for details. Any questions, comments, or concerns may be addressed to my talk page. Swarm ♠ 10:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that I have reopened this discussion per a request on my talk page. I still think this needs to be closed soon if nothing comes of it. Swarm ♠ 16:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Totally agree with you. This isn't the first time HW has had problems in this area apparently but there are also apparently some at least potential ambiguities regarding exactly how to apply NFC which lead me to think that maybe ANI isn't the best place to resolve this. That is basically why I suggested ArbCom above. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• John Carter, ArbCom would NOT take this case because other forms of resolution have not been attempted, much less exhausted. The matter has to be discussed extensively on ANI or AN first. Closing this thread before HW's behavior is thoroughly discussed and hopefully resolved would mean no resolution at all, and no chance of an ArbCom case. This thread is the closest we are going to get to resolving HW's behavior short of starting a whole new thread with the same discussion all over again. ArbCom won't take it if we don't exhaust the ANI/AN options. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it's not going to get resolved if editors keep expressing their concerns about HW's behavior, and HW keeps aggressively blowing them off without taking their concerns into consideration. That leaves as the only available options either a block from an admin to encourage HW to rethink his way of working -- and as Swarm points out, admins aren't exactly jumping to wield the banhammer -- or a topic ban imposed by the editors here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, anyone is free to propose either one (or both, under separate subheaders) of those, and see what the consensus is. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• As you know perfectly well, action has been proposed and soundly and repeatedly rejected. The most recent example, with multiple admins, weighing in, is plainly cited above. Repeating the closer's language,"Multiple admins have looked at this and found nothing actionable about the respondent's [Wolfowitz's] activities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• That was misleading, inaccurate, and premature close, made only one hour after that ANI was opened (because the filer was problematic and had provided no diffs); only two of the only three people who replied to the thread opined on its merits: [12]. This thread is a new discussion, with a lot more input, and actual evidence. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note also that just this morning, Softlavender removed a free image from Bazooka (instrument), substituting a nonfree version that had previously been used, citing her personal policy (argued above) that nonfree images cannot be removed without FFD deletion -- even when comparable free images are available. No honest, competent editor would take such a position, and it merits a significant sanction. It was deliberate disruption. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh good grief, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, your own highly misleading edit summary read "obvious NFCC#1 violation; Undid revision 815208899 by Just plain Bill" [13], not "replaced non-free image with free image", as it should have been, so your edit summary was inaccurate and misleading. As you had been blatantly edit-warring on that article and your edit summary implied that this was merely yet another of your unilateral image removals without replacement, I reverted you without checking the edit, and gave you an EW notice on your talkpage. Please stop with the misleading edit summaries and the edit warring. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think the edit sum left by HW was blatantly misleading especially if one moves beyond the edit sum and actually looks at the content of the edit. While the edit sum could've been worded a bit differently, it seems clear as to what was being done. The previous edit sum left by Just plain Bill was "If you have a free replacement image of the bazooka in the hands of its inventor, then offer it.", so that's exactly what HW did in his edit. Moreover, the article is about the instrument and while having a image of Burns holding the instrument is nice, a non-free one of him holding the instrument is not really needed per WP:NFCC#1 Any freely licensed equivalent image of the instrument itself could be used instead for primary identification purposes, so the non-free should've been removed or tagged (in my opinion) with {{rfu}} even if HW (actually it might have been We hope) did not take the time to try and find another image of Burns and a bazooka. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• You need to make a better excuse for why you are replacing free images with non-free ones in violation of policy than that Softlavender. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect to Softlavender, so far as I can see there are at least two individuals who are being criticized here, Walter Gorlitz and HW, one for adding problematic images, another for removing them. ArbCom has in the past shown a willingness to take on more complicated disputes such as this one. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Since I've been very critical of HW in this thread, I think it's only fair to thank him for finding a free image to replace the non-free one I put in Bazooka (instrument). I hope that it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway), that had I found that or any other free image -- which I didn't, after a diligent search -- I would have used it instead of the non-free image. The image that HW provided is very much the equivalent of the non-free one, and the quality of the article did not suffer from the change. Thank you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever your motives for this post may have been, it's generally inaccurate. I did not upload the image; User:We hope found and uploaded it, and deserves the credit. His long history of valuable contributions should demonstrate to editors like you the breadth and depth of free imagery available. I did, however, point out, and you pointedly ignored, that a free video including the inventor demonstrating his invention, the article subject, was already linked within the article. I don't view as credible, I don't think any reasonable person can view as credible, a claim of a "diligent" search that doesn't even bother to check the (short) list of resources provided in the (short) article. Similarly, your claim that the instrument was now rare to the point of unfindability was belied by the fact that multiple examples were offered for sale on Ebay and multiple contemporary videos of the instrument being played have been posted to YouTube. The bottom line, which you haven't been willing to accept, is that not being able to find a free image of something or someone on the Internet Right Now is not a valid justification for adding a nonfree image to Wikipedia. That's both consensus here and WMF policy, and you have no business agitating to undermine it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

My motive was ... (wait for it) ... to thank you for finding and inserting the image. (Imagine that!) Your suspicions about my motives are, unfortunately, part-and-parcel of the attitude you carry with you when doing your NFC work: all parties (except yourself) are guilty until proven innocent. In any event, thanks for the information, if not for your errant interpretation of policy.

@We hope: Thanks you for finding and inserting the free image. Perhaps you can tell me on my talk page how you got to it, in case your methodology might come in handy in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay...wow...the fact that HW decided to rant and make massive assumptions of bad faith in response to a thank-you note says it all, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I guess I am known for utilizing sarcasm at times, and I assume that he thought I was being sarcastic, which I wasn't. I thought he had found the picture (which I would have used if I had found it in the first place) and made the change, and I wanted to thank him for doing that, instead of his continuing to edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is directed that: whenever one of his NFC removals is disputed, if he continues to believe that the image in question does not meet the NFCC policy, he must bring the image to WP:Files for discussion for discussion by the community. This requirement is void if he replaces the non-free image with an appropriate substantially equivalent free image, except that if the appropriateness equivalence of that image is disputed, both questions (the putative NFCC violation of the initial image, and the appropriateness equivalence of the replacement free image) must be resolved at FFD.

• Support as proposer - I don't think an attention-getting block would work with this editor, and I don't believe that a general topic ban from NFC work would benefit the project, as HW's work in that area is generally very good, so I think this very specific proposal is the best possible solution to put this situation to rest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment-All the image has to do is be freely in the public domain. It does NOT have to be equivalent to the non-free image. The rules are that if there is a PD image, no matter how small or poor the quality, if it gets uploaded and can be recognized as PD, that's it for the non-free image. We hope (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Your point is well taken, although that part of the policy is rather ridiculous. I've changed the language to remove "equivalence". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I know not everyone agrees about this, but that's the way it's written, so that's how it would play out. We hope (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I understand, that's why I changed the wording. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support as the very least of the restrictions that should be applied here at this time. I would actually prefer a proposal that he is banned from ever unilaterally removing images that already have a fair-use rationale for that article. Softlavender (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Let's look back on the Jane Morgan discussion earlier this year re: free vs non-free and ping User:Masem. We hope (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest this as being 1RR in terms of NFCC image removals. Sometimes going to FFD is not always necessary. For example the bazooka instrument one feels like a case that if there was a remove-revert cycle, the discovery of a free image probably would have come up in talk page discussion (eg where editors interested in the instrument would be in better position to find a free replacement than the "regulars" at FFD). FFD can still be used, but key is that post 1RR, HW should open some discussion of why they think the image should go. I would like to consider that this 1RR can be exempted for "obvious" NFC failures, but I fear we don't have a good objective definition of what is an "obvious failure" to include this yet. We're trying to avoid a repeat of hard-handed NFC enforcement per how the community dealt with BetaCommand and I think in this specific case, for HW, this is one way to do it. --Masem (t) 20:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Masem: I would have no objection if you (or anyone else) want to start a proposal framing it that way. If you did, I would withdraw this proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Un-necessary and counter to written policy. If anything a 1rr restriction needs to be placed on editors reinserting non-free images. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please cite the "written policy" that this community-suggested editing restriction is counter to. Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Generally support this idea. NFCC is not BLP. There isn't even remotely the same "prevention of harm" rationale that is used in BLP cases to allow aggressive removal of suspect content. The truth of the matter is the NFCC goes light-years beyond the minimum legal requirements for fair use, let alone the minimum requirements to prevent causing damage to copyright holders. Except in the case of blatant copyright infringement, aggressive policing of fair use files can be just as much edit warring as anything else. We need less moral panic and "omgrightnow"ism surrounding nonfree files. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, pretty much for the same reasons as Mendaliv. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You know, for all the invective here, there's been absolutely no evidence that my image removal has been significantly inaccurate. Nobody has disputed that point with a shred of evidence. The preferred outcome of some folks here is that I should be punished for being fast, accurate, and policy-compliant. Punishment without evidence may be the Trumpian way, but it's not the Wikipedian way. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - File deletionism is one of the most serious problems at En-WP, it puts off new editors, and it only takes a couple people of the Betacommand ilk to cause massive damage to the project with their Vogonesque obedience to their own interpretation of Non Free File rules. American Fair Use law should be used to its fullest. Carrite (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's a nonstarter. The WMF has declared we must follow stricter standards that American fair use law. We're sharecropping on their farm, and can't defy their rules. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We're not here to follow the WMF's decrees, we are an autonomous community; WMF is the legal entity which operates the servers. On top of that, you are misrepresenting the WMF position, even if that was relevant, which it is not. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you're plainly wrong. The terms of use expressly commit every editor to complying with a set of WMF policies, and the WMF's licensing policy, which includes the limits on fair use files, is included on the list of those policies. Read them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Discussion is going to be needed in the future, because HW's comments here indicate he will not self-police. Grandpallama (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• You may possibly be right, but were the sanction to pass, we owe it to HW -- given his history of quality work (with exceptions) -- to see if he will comply with it willingly. I'm hoping that he would do so, and further reports at AN/I would therefore not be necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's awfully generous on your part. I would say, given HW's history, his quality work is pretty well balanced by years of being incredibly difficult, to the degree that many users feel he has exhausted the goodwill reserves that should otherwise be shown toward him, and I have never seen him just let things go. Grandpallama (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, of course. For all the evidence-free invective throw around here, a few points should be emphasized again. I have been active in reviewing nonfree file use since I began editing a decade ago. This year alone, I have reviewed well over 6000 uses, individually, and removed more than 3000 of them. No more than as dozen of these removals -- not file deletions, mind you, because many of these removals involve files with legitimate uses in other articles -- no more than a dozen have been seriously controversial, and for the very few of those that have gone to formal dispute resolution, my position has been sustained -- often unanimously, in terms of outsiders to the immediate dispute.
  

We aren't talking about well-disputed uses. We're talking about well-settled matters. Ninety percent of my removals fall into three categories, where consensus-established guidelines and policies are clear: Nonfree images of living persons, nonfree images of a subject's work in their biography (album covers, book jackets, movies posters, etc), and images used without article-specific use rationales. Here, the stsndards are quite clear -- and in the very small number of cases where an exception may apply, policy explicitly places the burden of proof on the editor(s) supporting inclusion.

My editing practices have been reviewed repeatedly and consistently found proper. Just last month, the conclusion was Multiple admins have looked at this and found nothing actionable about the respondent's [Wolfowitz's] activities (cited above). Admin Black Kite said I've looked through Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's non-free image editing and every single one that I've looked at so far is completely in line with our non-free image policy. Admin Boing! said Zebedee added that I've examined a few recent removals of non-free images from articles, and all appeared to be in line with policy to me too. In terms of governing policy, nothing has changed. This is just an effort to undermine the WMF's nonfree content policyby punishing an editor for enforcing it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I would be amenable to an even more severe restriction on Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, topic banning him from dealing with files at all. Get thee to Commons. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Chas. Caltrop for the third time

• Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• First AN/I report (29 October 2017): [14]
• Second AN/I report (18 November 2017): [15]

Will someone please tell me again why this editor -- who has been reported twice in the last six weeks -- is allowed to continue making POV edits mixed in with his ultra-pedantic grammar "corrections" (which generally take normal writing and make it stilted and extremely formal)? This is an editor who does not respond to complaints, just deletes them, [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. (The one time he did respond, it was to denigrate the intelligence of the person making the complaint. [21]. As far as I can tell he has never engaged in an actual discussion with anyone, except by way of acerbic (and inaccurate) edit summaries. In fact, they did not respond to either of the previous AN/I reports,

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

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

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

• Let me correct one statement I made above, Chas. Caltrop did reply to one other editor on his talk page, but the response was haughty and superior, as of a teacher replying to a somewhat slow child. [22] Such a response might be understandable if the comment being replied to was particularly inane, but that was not the case, it was a perfectly reasonable question, politely asked. [23] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A reply from Chas, Caltrop

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know.

Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something sanctionable

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

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

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

Diffs of Chas edit warring, November

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

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

diff 1

diff 2

diff 3 (for blanking a section)

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

diff 4

diff 5

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

diff 6

Multiple reverts against Chas on the Leninism page:

diff 7

diff 8

Multiple reverts against Chas on the Bananana Republic page:

diff 9

diff 10

Reverts on the Newspeak page:

diff 11

Revert on the World Communism page:

diff 12.

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

diff 13

diff 14

diff 15

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

diff 16

diff 17

diff 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Various infringements

On top of the previous diffs of edit warring

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

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

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

Diff Zzz complaining about Chas edit warring. No reply.

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

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

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

People trying to open discussions with Chas

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

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

Diff FreeKnowledgeCreator once again (different page). No reply

Diff MWAK on Chas' talk page. No reply.

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

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

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

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

Users complaining of lack of proper edit summaries (obfuscation)

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

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

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

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

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

• The editor does use edit summaries, as can be seen in his contributions: [24]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Diff Again, same user.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. Curly Turkey has been edit warring with me and Nardog on Ukiyo-e. We're changing the IPA so that it matches Help:IPA/Japanese, and this guy is continuously refusing to get the point that it's that guide that needs to be changed, not a particular transcription. Here are the relevant diffs: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30].

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

One of his most recent actions was to call me a 'commited troll' and then telling me to 'f off' after I posted an edit war warning on his talk page - see [31]. He also lied about my (only) revert on Ukiyo-e, calling it WP:POINT-y. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Curly Turkey is certainly in need of an attitude check. That this was the editor's attempt to prompt discussion on WP:JAPAN: [32] is pretty alarming. As is Curly Turkey's unbacked assertions of disruption, trolling and tag-teaming. (Which has been doubled down upon here.) Incivility is rarely enforced, but this conduct crosses the line into personal attacks. The lack of any discussion on the article's talk page (are there good faith discussions being undertaken anywhere?) reflects poorly on all involved, but in Curly Turkey's case this is indeed coupled with incivility and personal attacks. Their long-term involvement with this article suggests to me that this may be a case of ownership. Cjhard (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor failing to obey administrative closure on Talk: Cary Grant

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

---

• Talk:Cary Grant

Jcc is continuing to discuss a topic, even though it's been archived by an administrator. The topic on Cary Grant has been discussed countless times on this article before and goes absolutely nowhere each and every time. The latest bout was archived by Ritchie333 earlier today, and should remain so. But Jcc thinks he can get around this archive by starting a new thread about the same subject. There is no difference in doing this than there is to continue the archived discussion. Can someone have a word with this person to nip it in the arse before it escalates further? Cassianto^Talk 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• How about a nice big block for both you and Ritchie, for so obviously using 'archiving' just as a means to silence an opposing view to your own. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, it's good to see Cassianto's attempt to distort the truth with this report hasn't worked. Hopefully other viewers to this board will also check out the talk page for themselves. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• As opposed to Cassianto's leap to the drama boards, I'm attempting to offer a constructive solution (an RfC), to a perpetual problem (addition of an infobox without consensus)- as evidenced by the threads from Davidbrookesland, Jojhutton and HughMorris15. If anything, this thread should be about Cassianto's needless lurch to ANI, without warning, and behaviour on that article talk page, and others- I see he's just been involved in another spat with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) over infoboxes today- from someone who's been blocked over a dozen times for personal attacks and harassment. I can only assume that this ANI post is an attempt to harass me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice attempt to smear another editor without any basis or evidence. Please see WP:NPA as to how to discuss things civilwith other editors. – SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Jcc, friendly words of advice...I recently learned that following procedures is not always the best way to handle things. On Wikipedia, it's important to know when to stop arguing with other editors, and simply let them be wrong. Good luck. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet again, we see Cassianto wanting to impose their personal dislike of infoboxes onto everyone. They would do far better to simply apply some user CSS and just hide the offensive things from their own delicate view. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• SoftLavender wrote the comment in June of this year and it was cherry-picked now. The question came up again less than 3 months ago. closed 16-9-2017. Just how many times SHOULD it come up? Once a week, like you take out the rubbish? Ritchie333 was dragged into it here without the poster notifying him. Dragging other interactions and history into it looks like the tables are turned re: harassing and maybe go Aussie. We hope (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Great comment, apart from the fact Cassianto opened this report, which rather spoils it all. Quick- change the comment so you slate me instead! :D jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

More seriously- with reference to your comment Just how many times SHOULD it come up?- that's exactly what I'm tired of too. That's why I'm suggesting we have an RfC and establish a consensus one way or another. That way, we can revert all attempts to add/remove/re-add the infobox with a pointer to the RfC. This is an approach that has worked well with other articles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone else suggested the block. If you can harass an editor by pinging and thanking, you can do the same by continuing disruption at an article talk page with this. And you can harass more at a time than pinging or thanking. We hope (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And those who care to can be just as active with their RfCs. We hope (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• The thing to keep in mind here is that regardless of whether or not the infobox belongs or not, once we've reached a decision to not include one in this article, it is not unexpected that there will be questions about that decision. Let's just concede that the the proper decision here is to exclude the infobox from the Cary Grant article. (I'm not saying it WAS the proper decision mind you, just that we'll treat it as a given for the sake of moving this discussion forward). Given that such a decision does not match reader expectations at Wikipedia, there are, every so often, going to be people who find the lack of an infobox surprising. Those people are also going to know NOTHING about the background of how the decision was arrived at. Here is my central point, so don't miss it (bold for emphasis): New, uninvolved readers and editors with no background in the prior discussions leading to the decision to exclude the infobox deserve to be treated with decency and respect and should be expected to receive a patient, clear, and proper response to explain the rationale for the decision. The people who wish to maintain the lack of an infobox can do so for all I care, but what should not happen is what I see on the talk page, which is those self-same people being curt, rude, and dismissive of people who want to understand why that is so. There are going to be people every few weeks who are going to raise the question. We cannot stop them from raising the question. While that doesn't mean we have to relitigate the issue every few weeks, it DOES mean that those people should be treated with decency and respect, and not dismissed rudely as though the decision which was reached should have been obvious to them. --Jayron32 20:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! If everybody would follow this recommendation, the conflict was over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I have no intention of entering into any kind of exchange here, so Dingly and his friends can say what they like about me, I couldn't care less. This board, believe it or not, serves a purpose, of sorts, and it is reasonable for me to come here to let others stop trouble before it starts rather than participating in the drama and then being the subject of it. I've learnt that there's no point in conversing with people like Dingly as the ensuing drama only deflects away from the real issues at hand. Although I suspect that this is their plan all along. Cassianto^Talk 20:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I closed the thread because experience has shown me that discussions on Cary Grant tend to involve excessive bickering and it was not intended to favour either side of the debate. I have no strong opinions on whether this article should have an infobox - maybe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

...I remain astounded every time I see the fact come up that some people still believe infoboxes are bad, and that things get so vehement about it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

...I remain astounded every time I see the fact come up that some people still believe infoboxes are unthinkingly good, and that things get so vehement about it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

read me--Moxy (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to know, Moxy - I'm bookmarking that link. Not having an infobox is a disservice to our readers, and that's who we should be trying to please rather than wasting valuable time on editor disputes. Ritchie333 did the right thing by closing this infinite MOS sinkhole. I also agree with Jcc in that there needs to be an unambiguous decision to maintain some form of MOS consistency regarding style and content. We block editors to prevent disruption when we should be modifying or creating PAGs to eliminate the cause of the disruption. Now that would be a boost to editor retention and save our admins a boatload of time! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As I've seen several times before, the "research" can be read in different ways, with absolutely no justification for including or excluding an IB. - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• An advantage to having infoboxes is that those who don't want them can easily hide them, by simple technical means. Those who prefer them can't make them appear from nowhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• What about people reading the article who aren't registered editors? How do they dump the box, or is it assumed that everyone else in the world wants the boxes? We hope (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• I doubt that there are many newbie or casual readers with strong feelings either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think Andy Dingley is correct about that. In fact, I think most people assume that having an infobox is something common to all en.wiki articles. I still recall the surprise my son registered when he went to look up something in an article (I think it was Mozart, and there was no infobox. He was shocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• With respect, I don't see consistency as being one of the reasons listed in MOS:IBX. "Shock" is something someone experiences in a "sudden, upsetting or surprising event or experience". I should hardly image your son fell into this definition over an infobox. Cassianto^Talk 13:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, how about "momentary intense surprise", then? In any case, the point is that he, like (I believe) many other people who only use Wikipedia as a reference, assumed that all Wikipedia articles had infoboxes, because all articles he had looked at before had had them, so when he saw an article without an infobox he was momentarily intensely surprised. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and the information he was looking for would have been in the infobox if the article had one. I think it was date of birth -- and, yes, he found it in the lede quite quickly, but his first thought was to check the infobox, which wasn't there, making the article just a wee bit less useful to him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

BMK, he's lucky enough to benefit from you as his father, if you don't mind me saying; he doesn't need to be dumbed down to by a series of uninteresting and repetitive bullet points. I should point out, however, that I'm not, as stated many, many times before, completely adverse to all infoboxes. Off the top of my head this, this, this, and this spring immediately to mind where I've actively added or modified them as I considered them to do some good. Oh, and then there was this discussion that I took part in, during which I stated that I was all for an infobox, but not a premature one. And well known infoboxer-about-town, and all round good egg, RexxS, will, I'm sure, vouch for me with regards to the occasions I've approached him about which box to use, including the unnessersary (some might say) infobox extension (which I rather liked) on the Church of St Edward the Confessor, Romford article I started a few years ago. Cassianto^Talk 20:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Thank you, that's very nice of you to say, and I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The articles on composers always look a little off to me for not having infoboxes.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The use of infoboxes is optional as the Arbcom case in 2013 established [33] "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." I really hope this long running feud re infoboxes on classical music articles is not going to start up again.Smeat75 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't look like it though, as here we are discussing a film star and the box. ;((( We hope (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Which composers? Beethoven, ibox added by an arbitrator who wrote the infoboxes case, as the community consensus. Bach, Handel, Reger and many more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ritchie, closing a day-old good-faith thread on article talk with a snarky closing comment is not a great look for an involved administrator. It would be better if you provided some helpful advice or insight or overview, rather than closing the thread. I have now restored the new thread opened by Jcc that Cassianto deleted in violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You are worth your weight in gold, Softlavender. The project is very lucky to have you. Have a very merry Christmas and an exceedingly good and fulsome New Year! Cassianto^Talk 23:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Softlavender. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Something that isn't being discussed is that several editors have clearly stated that they basically own the article because they are the so-called "regular" contributors to the article, and that even though they are the minority in these discussion, that their opinion should prevail. Claims of article ownership are serious breaches in Wp etiquette and are very disruptive to consensus building.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, we've seen a lot of that lately. --John (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Aww, that cliche OWN claim, bless. OWN works both ways. Cassianto^Talk 14:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's try truth-I see no one at that TP claiming ownership of the article-only an accusation by the complaining editor. Just so there's no misunderstanding, here are the replies to that: editor editor. Anyone interested can read the rest at the TP and see there are no vine-swinging, chest-thumping claims of ownership. We hope (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely a massive, face-splitting boomerang is due here? Carey Grant’s talk page reads like an excerpt from the Bumper Book of Complete Assholes.

All the ‘Fascinating! Thanks for your comment! LOLZ NOT’ lamery from Cassianto aside, this particular doozie sticks out: In response to the seemingly valid question “why does the minority opinion [remove the infobox] prevail?” Dr Blofeld replies, with worrying authority:

“Because it is the minority of editors who do hard work on here writing the articles which would still be short or bloated unsourced crap if they weren't properly researched. The people who actually write and promote articles should have more say in the formatting of the articles than the people who don't…”

Feels odd to have to point this out, but that’s shite. Minority opinion is minority opinion. It doesn’t matter if article guardian Blofeld spent 25 years writing the whole of Wikipedia solo, and NewbieDave4056 has made fuck all edits. Their opinions are equal, their votes count the same and both have an equal right to edit content on any article.

No idea what the fuss is about having/not having an infobox, or what an infobox even is but it seems a strange thing for grown adults to be wetting themselves about. Why not just have an RFC about it? Actually, why doesn’t this JCC fella just open one himself? Job done, everyone swallow the result and try their best to get on with their lives without topping themselves, if that’s at all possible. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone block Singora above, please. They are evading a block. Cassianto^Talk 14:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Lame. Wouldn't be trying to deflect attention away from an argument you don't like, would you mate? I have no idea who Singora is (and you know it). Still, this sneaky tactic has slightly more edge to it than "LOLZ ROFL CHEERS M8". So, yeah - congrats on the step up. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, grown adults shouldn't need to argue about infoboxes or waste their time trying to enforce them. Just accept articles as they are and focus on writing articles which need to be written, stop focusing on trivialities. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes serve the readers. Supposing that serving the readers is considered to be important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think you speak for "the reader"? Certain infoboxes do no such thing and serve only those wishing to cheat quickly in pub quizzes. Full, factual, and well-written lead sections serve everyone and are the work of someone wishing to serve the reader. Cassianto^Talk 19:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Infoboxes don't seem to add any value to these bios. JAGUAR 20:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The whole infobox thing has long ceased to be amusing. I predict another ArbCom case in early 2018. --John (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that should be set up as a recurring event. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

^{😂 I saw that Bugsy...and make it BYOB. Atsme📞📧 20:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)}

Interesting, Dr. Blofeld: "Just accept articles as they are". Why was the article not left as it was, then, but the infobox removed? I believe that much precious time could have been spent on more article writing, that now went into this same question again and again, by different people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah, there's nothing more precious than an ibox Gerda, way more important than writing articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is it one or the other for you? You found the article like this in 2015. You could have left the infobox as was and expanded the article, which you did for quite a while, and thanks be to you for having done that, and thanks to the others who helped. The removal happened in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• General Note Once again, just by taking a straw poll of the comments here and at the articles previous talk page discussion, there is a clear 2 to 1 majority in favor of restoring the info box. As always, it's the same 5 or 6 editors who continue to push their minority opinion.JOJ ^Hutton 20:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • What a charmer you are. See WP:NOVOTE Cassianto^Talk 20:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that it's always been the same handful of editors pushing for an infobox's addition.[34][35][36] JAGUAR 20:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not a vote, but please tell me what policy or guideline are the majority of editors breaking? Why should the minority opinion be favored over the majority opinion? In addition, it's not always the same number of editors who feel that the article should have an info box. There have been countless editors who have expressed that the article should have an info box. Each new discussion brings in more and more. I only counted the most recent discussion, but if I went back and looked at every single editor over the past year and a half, I would find that it's the same six who do not want an info box, while I would find that dozens of editors have expressed favor for an info box.JOJ ^Hutton 20:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, what makes you think your in the majority? If we were to have a Wikipedia wide vote with regards to Infobox Biography, and what good it does, I think you'll be surprised with the outcome. Secondly, what makes you think Wikipedia is a democracy? It's not. Arguments can settle on the minority side of the arguement, if the scores are too tight to determine a consensus. Cassianto^Talk 21:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem confused. At 20:46 yesterday you pointed out it is not a vote. Now you talk about "a Wikipedia wide vote". It might help you to understand if you clearly think through whether consensus is determined by voting. --John (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I'm confused about is your erratic behaviour of late. The stalking of my edits, which has brought you here; canvassing for the purposes of scoring points in RfCs; allowing personal grudges to influence rational thought in order to derail an FAC that someone has put a lot of hard work into; intimidating diff collecting... need I go on? Have you considered a break away from all this to collect your thoughts? Cassianto^Talk 20:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like my FAC review. Is consensus determined by voting? --John (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Who did, exactly? You appear to be the only one. I think you need to compare WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOVOTE and work it out for yourself. Cassianto^Talk 06:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad we've cleared that up. Yes, you need an actual argument, just signing your name usually isn't enough. --John (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

OPEN UP an RFC

Ya'll should just open an Rfc at the article-in-question. Will it help? don't know. Will it hurt? likely not. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and then when the likes of Jcc and anyone else get bored a few months later, we can hold another one, and then another one, and another...continue ad infinitum. Cassianto^Talk 21:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A 1-year mandatory freeze on another Rfc would settle things. Furthermore, a Wikipedia-wide Rfc on Bios of actors (infoboxes or no infoboxes) would be more ideal. I'm guessing though, many pro-individual article editors would oppose such a move. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

One year is still too close. I think we're closer to discovering a cure for the common cold than we are at solving the infobox dispute. But I admire your attempt at providing a compromise, as opposed to the unfettered bullshit I've seen Jcc, Dingly, and others spirt out.Cassianto^Talk 21:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Heck, how about a 5 year mandatory freeze. I certainly could go for that. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested a moratorium on the article talk page yesterday. I really think we should go for it- like GoodDay, I'd happily agree to a over two year freeze post-RfC if that's what you wanted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I really think at this point a two-state solution is the only feasible way forward. EEng 22:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Best. Comment. Ever. — JFG ^talk 12:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

We have a de-facto two-state solution. When I write a new article, I add an infobox, and nobody cares. When Dr. Blofeld writes a new article, he may add one or not, and I won't care. How would you solve a problem as the one here: an article that had an infobox for years, which was removed in the process of improvement, declared as an improvement (diffs above)? Do improvements give you the right to undo what others had added long before you? That is the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like something better suite to ARBCom than RfCs. The last 2 requests for relief on the box problems were tabled by the committee. Someone needs to make a move in that direction and see if they're willing to hear it now. We hope (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It also doesn't take in the process of articles without boxes where someone decides to add it "try ibox". You seem to want the same "rights" to restore boxes that those who either don't want them or want them restored are seeking. We hope (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

When I try an infobox, and say so in the edit summary, and it is reverted, I drop the case without argument. I think that's fair, and doesn't take the community's time. I wasn't reverted often in 2017, - I count eight nine, two of them were restored by others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to try arbcom, you will be asked if all other mediation has been tried. On the talk, we just started to talk about parameters, which is a way forward that I like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

When I first read this, I thought it said, "If you want to try arbcom, you will be asked if all other medication has been tried." Not a bad idea, come to think of it. It's like when someone [37] said, "I really like your comments re uses of lobotomy at ANI." Combined with medication that could do wonders in keeping bad behavior under control project-wide. EEng 06:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any other lasting solution. As it is now, this can go on over and over with others choosing sides and encouraging others to "play on". Arbcom's willingness to consider the problem seems to be the only solution. We hope (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Attrbution: "play on" is short for "no foul, play on", first used by Floquenbeam (then arbitrator) in an edit summary for ARCA regarding infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop the windmill-tilting. What was meant was in the sense of keep going with it. Not "amusing". We hope (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If the Rfc route isn't taken? then try a collapsed infobox, as a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Inclusion of Infobox, Cary Grant

There is a discussion involving the inclusion of an infobox in the Carey Grant article at Talk:Cary_Grant#RFC_on_Inclusion_of_Infobox

For fucks sake, there. Merry Christmas. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain, if an IP is allowed to start RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Me too, but then who cares. I've long since lost interest in this fucking pantomime. Cassianto^Talk 15:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding mine to include the entire project. We hope (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Ne0Freedom

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

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

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

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

There's a DS notice on his Talk, which refers to this: [38].

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

He's also reverting Doc James here: [39].

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

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

The references ([40] and [41]) should be good enough for citing "food advocacy groups consider labeling irradiated food raw as misleading". --Ne0 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article creations by Noname83746

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

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

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

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

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

User:Olsen24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An editor going by User:Rural Lyra and User:86.179.200.63 has been edit-warring over an extended period of time on the Congressional Black Caucus article to describe the organisation as racist] without providing much in the way of sourcing. I believe describing an organisation with a small, identifiable membership as racist without any citations to back this up is a violation of the BLP policy and have made this clear to them. Nevertheless, they persist in readding the content without discussion or so much as leaving edit summaries, see [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] going back to September. When the page was semi-protected to prevent the disruptive editing from their IP address they simply switched back to the Rural Lyra account and readded the content anyway. Their talk pages show they have been made aware of concerns about their edits to other articles and have simply ignored them entirely. In my opinion, it is becoming clear that this user is engaging in disruption and POV-pushing and has shown no interest in discussing their behaviour. Can anything be done about this? --RevivesDarks (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Jack has previous edit-warred at The Gifted (TV series); see edits at [48][49][50] (after which, page was protected after Jack requested protection with a specifically "stable" version that he preferred]), and [51][52], and [53][54][55].

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

1. On Arrow (TV series), an editor had added content that I later removed; Jack came to the page and reverted me.
2. On Jodie Whittaker, an editor had removed a photo twice [56][57] based on their personal views; I restored it both times [58][59] while another editor agreed with me. Jack came to the page and reverted me.
3. On Riverdale (2017 TV series), an editor made an edit in contrast to the hidden note there, and I reverted, pointing them to the note with my edit summary. Jack came to the page and reverted me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh Alex, when will you just stop?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This thread is sorely lacking on diffs for a lot of things. I noticed the racist thing and it's something fairly serious but with no diffs it's hard to get a gauge of what happened. So some looking in talk pages and following links and search eventually found [60]. The rest of the thread is here Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#Fan Bingbing as Blink Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Both the OP and Adamstom.97 have been exhibiting behaviour far beyond the pale of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for some time, so I find it incredibly odd that they would try to bring Jack Sebastian to ANI when that user has been trying to call them out for their frankly atrocious behaviour (see for example here). Alex's behaviour here (and Adamstom's in the linked talk page) are things that frankly I was shocked didn't lead to immediate blocks: the only explanation I can think of is that admins avoid this topic area even with their ten-foot poles. (Bish admitted as much when I practically begged her to intervene here.) I have been struggling to think of a way to deal with this problem for some time (as has User:Curly Turkey[61] and probably many others), and since this thread is already TLDR I think the only admin action that could come of it would be from the already debateably involved User:Coffee, so I'd say this thread should be closed without action, but if anyone does want to issue blocks for the non-stop disruption the OP and his tag-team partner have been causing of late, they'll find no opposition from me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pending a specific complaint about his misuse of them, I'm hoping whoever closes this restore Jack Sebastian's user rights. Rebbing 10:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Final warning (civility and NPA) for AlexTheWhovian

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

False accusations of hounding: it is clear that the only reason you return to contribute to these articles and talk pages, when you've stated you have little interest in them, is to start further drama and drive editors out[62] [sarcastic comment that I won't quote out of context as it would give the wrong impression][63] I do get to note how it's so coincidental how you pop up on every report I file. Interesting, no?[64] (Note that Alex has indicated an awareness of an ArbCom case involving me from back in 2015, two years before my first interaction with him, so I don't doubt he could present evidence of my having engaged in personal attacks that were already addressed in that ArbCom case; but honestly, I think going back through someone's history from two years earlier because they commented in a single ANI thread, which was the extent of my interaction with him to that point, and then especially this kind of thing, shows that when Alex accuses me of hounding, he's calling the WP:KETTLE black; this is what makes me really want to believe Jack when he says the same here.) False accusations of personal attacks: Amusing how you ask that we remove attacks - do you see us asking you to remove your attacks? How about you strike your entire initial post? I find it a blatant personal attack.[65] If you want to talk about NPA, recall your own personal attacks[66] shall I recall the multitude of personal attacks you've given as well?[67] Refusal to provide evidence or withdraw accusations: And there you are again, with your "strike this, strike that", dictating editors yet again on what they can and cannot post. Amusing how you ask that we remove attacks - do you see us asking you to remove your attacks? ... I refuse to strike any part of my post, I stand by every word of it and would repeat it all again.[68] [response to a direct request for evidence with a non-sequitur that ignored the request][69] (Ctrl+F this page for "multitude" to see all the subsequent times I've pinged him requesting evidence and been ignored, although I already pinged you with the latest one.)

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

OK, I see the diff [70] above now. You were hinting at it before he commented on your post, and he said (with likely sarcasm) that he agreed with your statement. It probably would have been better for AlexTheWhovian to have not commented, but it's nothing serious. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Interestingly enough, that exchange centered largely around me letting slip my private suspicion that he was hounding me (again -- within three days of his first direct interaction with me, he was going back through an ArbCom case involving me from two years earlier), Alex demanding that I withdraw said accusation, and me complying as soon as I figured out what he was talking about. Puts the above Amusing how you ask that we remove attacks - do you see us asking you to remove your attacks? How about you strike your entire initial post? I find it a blatant personal attack.[71] in perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Four separate two-way IBANs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promotion of Brent Alden, False Alarm band, rangeblock needed

Somebody in Southern California using the range Special:Contributions/2600:1:B157:E2D5:0:0:0:0/41 has been persistently promoting the punk band False Alarm, making them out to be more important and promoting their recent work.[72] The promotion includes band member Brent Alden's proposed cure for impotency.[73] This person has also put herself forward as a job applicant for the magazines Rolling Stone and The New Yorker,[74][75] which demonstrates serious competency problems. Many warnings have been issued but she has offered no reply. She's been blocked a handful of times,[76][77][78][79] but the disruption continues. I think we need a rangeblock. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promotional and copyright violation edits at Parents' Worship Day

• Parents' Worship Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I'd appreciate more eyes on this, as multiple accounts appear to be invested in puffing this up right now. I've also asked for some rev/deletion for copyright violations. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I tried to do some cleanup on this article. I should have taken a look at the Talk page first. It seems this article was previously merged into Asaram Bapu and that AmSeema just recreated it today. There have already been some contentious edits to this article like diff. Maybe the whole page needs to be put back as a redirect and protected? Klaun (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Saiph121

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

Saiph121 has been problematic on several articles. While I believe there may be a CIR issue (language barrier and/or youth), they took umbrage at the suggestion of a language issue.[80] (My suggestion was based on their seemingly not understanding part of WP:CATDEFINING (their apparent feeling that one source saying one element is in the film constitutes reliable sources "commonly and consistently" defining the film that way) and numerous odd word choices and phrasings.)

While various issues have cropped up on several articles, I am focusing mostly on a handful of them in a couple of articles for some semblance of simplicity.

Saiph generally does not use edit summaries and usually ignores requests for clarification, leaving a lot of room for imagination. Are they simply not aware of reasons their edits have been reverted? Do they not understand? Do they disagree? Are they editing while signed out to avoid scrutiny or are they repeatedly forgetting to log in? Did they read and understand the requests to log in?

For reasons unknown, Saiph frequently switches between editing while logged in and logged out. Often, the IP edits restore material Saiph had added after it had been reverted. The reverts typically give no explanation.

Despite numerous requests to follow BRD and explanations of 3RR and EW, Saiph tends to simply restore any reverted changes (sometimes while logged out, usually without explanation of any kind).

Saiph's restores sometimes give an "explanation" that is nothing more than a denial of the edit summary in the revert ("Please stop removing these photos as these two (Ronan and Metcalf) received widespread critical acclaim and should be featured there."[81], "these photos between Ronan and Metcalf is being referred to critical acclaim of their performances"[82], "this award is not invalid."[83], "NOT category overload."[84], "the other version is much better."[85], "repeating the same reason being mentioned."[86], "the original categories that were listed earlier are Not considered as a laundry list."[87], "still removing spoiler stuff."[88], etc.)

Saiph seems to prefer detailed lists of characteristics. Their repeated additions/restores of various disputed categories lead, at my suggestion, to them taking the question to DRN (with rather ominous notifications on our talk pages[89]). Dissatisfied with the first outcome, they tried round two at DRN. Both times, DRN found that there wasn't a dispute, rather Saiph disagreed with the clear consensus. They also received a caution to not use DRN "to push [their] point of view" [90] and a warning of a possible topic ban from DRN if they continued opening frivolous cases.[91]

With these edits and these (including their edits as 49.147.11.70) they have now:

• restored Category:Witchcraft in film against a clear consensus against its inclusion. They were included in several different discussions that formed the consensus against it.
• restored parent categories (e.g., films set in Paris and films set in France). Given their obsession with adding as many categories to film articles as possible, I guess this isn't surprising. They may or may not be aware of and/or understand the concept of parent categories, I don't know. I rather doubt discussion on their talk page would be anything other than a monologue with no change in behavior.
• repeatedly restored a repeatedly removed trivial pseudo-award, despite numerous warnings/discussions on their talk page regarding their tendency to ignore WP:BRD and instead edit war to restore their preferred version.
• removed apparently relevant material without explanation (Disney and BMW's co-marketing deal).
• restored a repeatedly removed unsourced claim (regarding "Belle's Tales of Friendship").
• gave very little in the way of explanation for their restoring the disputed material.

Attempts to discuss/resolve

• Edit summaries please: [92], [93], [94]
• EW/3RR warnings, please BRD: [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]
• Please log in: [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110]
• Too many categories/genres/adjectives: [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136]
• POV/NOR: [137], [138], [139], [140], [141] - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Codename Lisa

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

Hey there,

I've been trying to make some minor edits at Opera (web browser) and have encountered not only some insistent resistance, but also undue personal attacks by User:Codename Lisa:

• The fact that you use "POV" as an adjective demonstrates your ignorance of our policy
• you are foul-mouthed person (which I'll try to forget) who is not above or beyond mischaracterizing facts using bogus or questionable search queries
• The very existence of a connotation is an assumption that, I am afraid, is only in your head
• your question is futile and purposeless – well, unless we assume bad faith in you
• be careful my friend
• your description of Vivaldi is zero-informative

I've tried to avoid taking any of this personally and stay on topic, but I would just say this: this user seems to be of that particular class of editors who quote WP:Policy copiously when is suits them, dwell on minor linguistic details (or ignore broad semantic differences) when they see fit, and use personal insults as part of their normal mode of discourse, without ever losing an ounce of self-righteousness; but you be the judge. For my part I tried to remain on-topic.

Other details:

• I've asked and receives WP:3O, and tried to accommodate it in a subsequent edit.
• User:FleetCommand is involved here as well. He is mentioned somewhere else on this page in relation with canvassing while working with the user who's the subject of this complaint; this user may have canvassed for him this time.

François Robere (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks, just a content dispute and your childish reference to George Carlin. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, really? Well, how does the grammatical properties of "POV" relate to the article's content? What possible relevance does it have?

Each of these criticisms, whether justified or not, could've been phrase without any personal reference: "I don't believe this conforms with the policy"; "I don't see how these results refute the argument"; etc. But instead they're all written in the personal. How's isn't it a recurring personal attack?

As for Carlin - if you read the discussion you see the other editor's tendency to quote from WP:Policy extensively and strictly, including where it doesn't fit, as long as it supports their cause. This was obviously one of these cases, to which I responded by mentioning yet another case where it doesn't apply. Do you disagree? François Robere (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa is an exasperating editor to deal with, but I don't see anything warranting sanctions in the evidence presented. As an aside, pretty much any noun can be used as an adjective in English: see Noun adjunct. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A warning would suffice. One can expect this won't be the last such request. François Robere (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that Codename Lisa should take it easy based on the above-presented snippets. I seem to recall an essay somewhere advising editors to avoid "you-focused" language when making comments or criticism with respect to other editors' contributions because of the risk of those getting taken personally and causing a needless dispute. Unfortunately, I can't find that essay at the moment. Even if François Robere's conduct left something to be desired (which I do not concede), we should strive to work together in spite of it. We've seen complaints regarding Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand quite a lot recently, and while I won't start with the idioms regarding smoke and fire, I will say that in all the cases I recall their behavior has been somewhat below expectations of editors of their experience level. Not so bad as to merit sanctions generally, but not as good as I personally would expect. Just please bear in mind that a pattern of mildly disruptive behavior can result in sanctions even though the individual incidents are not so bad as to merit any sanction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• CL should probably rein it back a little but I'm not seeing anything here actionable, Both editors should go to the talkpage and discuss whatever issues they have (if one or the other refuses then we have means and ways of forcing a discussion). –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment by involved and named editor, FleetCommand: I'll start from the top.

• "The fact that you use "POV" as an adjective demonstrates your ignorance of our policy". This is a personal comment indeed. But it is an educational and benign one, in the same line as the uw-* templates. You were clearly under the impression that any and all forms of sharp POV is not allowed in Wikipedia, which is not true. They are allowed, as long as they are represented fairly, proportionately and without bias. (Directly from WP:NPOV.) That means they should be represented sharply.
• "you are foul-mouthed person (which I'll try to forget) who is not above or beyond mischaracterizing facts using bogus or questionable search queries". Under any other circumstances, it would have been a personal attack worthy of a block. But this time, it is totally warranted, because you, without provocation, wrote shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits just to prove you can and will say anything. Clearly a case of WP:BOOMERANG here. As for mischaracterizing facts, it appears it was a prophecy that fulfills itself. See below.
• "The very existence of a connotation is an assumption that, I am afraid, is only in your head". You think this is a personal attack? Mischaracterizing facts. She did give you a more benign version of this earlier but you pressed her to give this one by dishonestly writing "I asked you earlier about the importance of context and connotation, and you failed to answer". You asked for it.
• "your question is futile and purposeless". This is a comment on "your question", not you. "well, unless we assume bad faith in you" is complemented with "but I am not there yet", which means she is not assuming bad faith. (Mischaracterizing facts again, are we?) But the full quotation is:

  "That said, FleetCommand had already taken down the word "disgruntled" from the article. Therefore, your question is futile and purposeless – well, unless we assume bad faith in you, in which case the purpose would be to harass FleetCommand; but I am not there yet."

  You see? I offer you a compromise, by giving you the one thing you want most, but you continue the argument nevertheless, file an ANI case and then accuse me of canvassing (which is not always forbidden, by the way). If it is not a sign of bad faith, then I am afraid I know what a sign of bad faith can possibly look like.

I am not dignifying the remaining two with a comment. Even User:Curly Turkey said " I don't see anything warranting sanctions". (Believe me, there is a hell of lot of bad blood between this user and the reported user. A lot!)

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 05:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember who FleetCommand is, but I suppose it's reassuring to know so many care about my existence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. It's nearly Christmas... Kleuske (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I find it curious he's so furiously defending comments that aren't even his own, in a complaint that wasn't lodged against him. It's bad strategy for someone who's been involved in canvassing. Also, it's bad tactics to take comments out of context, especially when the context was already supplied earlier. François Robere (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: Now accusing someone of canvassing without a diff/evidence... that can be seen as a personal attack too. Perhaps drop the shovel? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dude, it's right here on WP:ANI - I even linked to the relevant section in the introduction. So whose shovel is it? François Robere (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: Erm...that section (which has since rolled into the archive, so your link is broken) does not involve FleetCommand, but rather FleetCommand is a Doroogh Goo, an impersonator. I do believe you owe FleetCommand an apology for your allegations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If it is the case, then my apology. I do find it curious that these two, to paraphrase a popular saying, are always seen in the same room together, and their eager mutual support does nothing to forward the discussion. François Robere (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"I find it curious he's so furiously [~snip~] in a complaint that wasn't lodged against him." You accused me of canvassing, you genius! It is punishable by an indefinite block. Codename Lisa is reported here for what? "A warning would suffice." Seriously. This guy has consistently failed to see things for what they are. Can you believe this guy? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion is turning into a circus. Would someone please close it? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure it's ripe for closing yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

{{cot|Completely unrelated contents; any content dispute not related to this topic must be first discussed in the article talk page}}

Eep. What is this? The most important error was incorrect designation of this program as "application". It is, in fact, a utility. Since when are utilities not apps? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned that you told an editor that he had to take his name off his own website to get us to remove it here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

{{Cob}} Unhatted examples of disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-unhatted. FleetCommand, just leave it alone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Or you do what, revered admin? Block me for actually adhering to the policy? You do have a history of one such childish threat, on which you never acted. (Although you did make such a fuss in WP:VP that a third editor had to tell you to stop.)

But yes, I think I will stop. This is Codename Lisa's problem and she is sitting comfortably on her tushy, not taking any of this heat. Plus, SarekOfVulcan just proved that she thinks adhering to WP:OVERSIGHT policy is "disruptive editing" and the she doesn't know the difference between application software and utility software. This is actually precious. What the hell I was thinking, hatting it?

Feel free to leave this discussion open until the sound of the horn. I don't think you or anyone else can secure a sanction against Codename Lisa or me, not because people love us, but because they love themselves first and don't want to give you a precedent to block them when they said "be careful my friend". And come to think of it, even if you did secure a sanction, it won't be the end of the world. Far from it... FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 20:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop it, please, FleetCommand. I think you've said enough, and your Romeo and Juliet-esque feud with Codename Lisa is beginning to cloud your judgement. Thanks for helping in this thread, though. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC) (might close this in a minute!)

Feud? Read it all again, Tom, and the history. Thanks anyway. -- Begoon 10:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, from Mendaliv, though: "We've seen complaints regarding Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand quite a lot recently, and while I won't start with the idioms regarding smoke and fire, I will say that in all the cases I recall their behavior has been somewhat below expectations of editors of their experience level. Not so bad as to merit sanctions generally, but not as good as I personally would expect. Just please bear in mind that a pattern of mildly disruptive behavior can result in sanctions even though the individual incidents are not so bad as to merit any sanction." I don't think CL's sometimes tortured and stilted English helps much, but regardless of that they are, at times, far too combative and unwilling to "drop sticks". Bring back WP:RFC/U; this is exactly what it dealt with well, and ANI can't. -- Begoon 10:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What exacerbates these situations are FleetCommand's unthinking and inflammatory defenses of Codename Lisa. The WP:VPP situation they're referring to is here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_135#Vandalism_or_not:_What_if_an_admin_doesn't_agree_with_the_community?. Editors can decide for themselves who made the fuss. If this is a regular occurrence then the behavior should be looked at. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I really wish I didn't feel obligated to elaborate on my experience during this conflict, but all I intended to do was supply an uninvolved opinion to hopefully resolve a quick discussion and this has been anything but that. This somehow cannot be resolved because the three editors involved in this conflict appear to enjoy insulting each other or rambling about irrelevant nonsense instead of focusing on the topic. This confusingly cyclical debate is mostly about one sentence in a See also section that describes a Wikipedia article, and it should not be difficult to quickly establish a description that's relatively agreed upon and avoids neutrality issues and original research because the original problem is quite obvious and can be easily corrected.

I have not interacted with Codename Lisa, FleetCommand, and François Robere beyond Talk:Opera (web browser), but this is preposterous. Both power~enwiki and Ahecht have now also offered completely reasonable alternatives, but instead of suggesting simple tweaks or just signing off on options, editors involved continue to dick around and even respond rudely to the three of us. This should be very far below the expected conduct of experienced editors. Rhinopias (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

I found new sources in the Bloomberg L.P. [142] Haaretz [143] and Reader's Digest [144], Lonely Planet [145] - scanned pages [146], [147], but the nomination for restoration was already closed and I was blocked for multiple placement. How can I re-discuss the matter with the new sources? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Rick-7

Nothing to do here except remind OP that assume good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Rick-7 is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia; he "corrects" punctuation errors by creating new ones. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a case of NOTHERE. What makes you think they're malicious? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. Rick-7's edits look like they are made in good faith to me. Reporting someone here in regards to minor grammatical issues without even attempting to speak with them first is really inappropriate. Deli nk (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think administrative intervention is needed so far; I've added a welcome template. Peter James (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Defamatory attack

This comment, or opinion by user user:Skylax30 is overtly defamatory; it is a reputation attack against myself as both a person, and a Wikipedian. Skylax30 has turned the dispute on the notability of Panayiotis Diamadis in Greek-language WP [148], [149], [150], cf. the Greek article talk page, and Talk:Panayiotis Diamadis as well -an article he has recently created there- to a staightforward insult, and personal attack against myself in the English-language WP. ——Chalk19 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It does seem the Greek Equivalent of a Uncle Tom is what is being stated.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Uncle Theseus", say? EEng 02:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's more thant that. Naming me a "self-hater Greek" is a personal insult; not of course the second part -"Greek"- but the "self-hater" part. It is a totally improper comment conserning my personality, or my personal condition, comming -in addition- from a person who is a complete stranger to me. Don't you think so, Serialjoepsycho? "The term self-hatred is used infrequently by psychologists and psychiatrists, who would usually describe people who hate themselves as persons with low self-esteem. Self-hatred and shame are important factors in some or many mental disorders, especially disorders that involve a perceived defect of oneself (e.g. body dysmorphic disorder)" (WP article on self-hatred). ——Chalk19 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not more than that it is just that. Uncle Tom is highly derogatory epithet. He's calling you a selfhating Greek servile to genocide deniers. As such this is highly inappropriate and bigoted. However, it has nothing to do with the psychological straw you are grasping at. Basically he's saying that you are a Greek who is working with modern Greek Genocide Deniers.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Either way Serialjoepsycho, it's worse than it looked to me in the first place. ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's wholly unacceptable, yes; a NPA-4 warning has been issued. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a bit of friendly advice; it didn't apply in this case, but try to shy away from using adjectives such as "defamatory" or "libelous" to describe comments by other editors. Administrators tend to be particularly sensitive to these terms since they can be considered a step away from an implied legal threat.--WaltCip (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User Chalk19 has falsified what I posted in the discussion. I wrote about "self-hater Greeks" (plural) which is something general and a term frequently used in political discussions. The above comment about psychiatric use, is completely irrelevant and refers to persons who hate themselves. He transfered here the phrase after changing the plural to singular ("Greek") giving a completely different meaning to my post. The same trick he did in the discussion of the greek article 22:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC). @The Bushranger: is requested to look again the discussion of the article [151]. If editing another user's post is prohibited by WP rules, he is requested to warn user Chalk19. Claims of "personal attack" are foundless. PS, I don't know how to use the notification to the user involved (Chalk19). Someone is requested to do it, please. --Skylax30 (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ιt is not a falsification. The comment by Skylax30 not only includes myslef among the "self-hater Greeks", but clearly makes me an example of this kind (?) of "Greeks". So, "whatever" (=meaning what? "great" perhaps, or -as it implies- "bad", "crazy", "treacherous" etc.?) someone may have "heared about self-hater Greeks who oppose the recognition of Greek Genocides" is -according to Skylax30, "true", because of me. Lately in Greece a lot is "heared" publicly in similar cases, and some people are even verbaly threatened. Skylax30 a couple of hours before writing the above comment, had opened a similar case against users of the Greek-language WP, using a milder language for the moment. ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

PS. Skylax30, you know how to notify The Bushranger, as you have done, but you don't know how to notify me? ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Skylax30 He didn't falsify what you said he provided a diff and everyone can see exactly what you said. Are you suggesting that you suddenly decided to start talking about Self hating Greek genocide deniers but you weren't calling Chalk9 or anyone else one? The both of you should avoid bringing your Greek Wikipedia fights over to here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Seven

Before reading this report, please read my previous one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WCCO-TV

Names of non-notable people (i.e. those without Wikipedia articles) keep showing up at WCCO-TV. I remove them, but my edits keep getting reverted. [152] [153] [154] [155] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

G6 deletions of draft namespace redirects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content Dispute (posting with agreement of other party)

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

---

Raymond3023 (talk had two content disputes with me, and he has suggested that ANI will be the forum to use as he has stopped any discussion on the Talk pages. The first Issue is that Raymond3023 removed the mention of internsex rights from the page Human rights in India. He then changed the Outgoing links from Racism in India to Terrorism in India and Sexism in India to Transgender rights in Tamil Nadu. I wanted to talk to him about this but he has declined dialogue after some troll-ish comments. The second issue is that he has removed all information from the article Intersex rights in India and placed it in the Hijra article. He doesn't want to discuss this as well even though Hijra dn intersex are not always the exact same thing. Raymond has cautioned me that I will be banned if I continue to edit these articles, so perhaps a few of other editors will be kind enough to take a look at these articles as Raymond is not responding, and I can't edit anymore. Elektricity (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Elektricity and Raymond3023. This noticeboard is not for discussing content disputes and administrators have no special powers to adjudicate content disputes. The proper places to discuss these disagreements are the talk pages of the various articles. If that is not successful, we have various forms of dispute resolution available. All of your discussion should be with the goal of creating consensus in mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: the OP is deceiving, nothing more. How this message can be considered as "agreement of other party" to start content dispute on ANI? Raymond3023 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Raymond3023, what gives? You are saying that you are thinking of openeing an ANI thread, I opened it up for you. Despite you calling me brainless, I try to talk to you with civility, why the attitude? @Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it Raymond has closed the discussion saying that he wishes to discuss no more, I dont think he wants to talk about this issue, and that is the sole reason that I wanted to get other ditors involved. Elektricity (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Concern about recent edits at Stephen Henderson

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

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

Jpbowen

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

The article on IGI Global, a questionable publisher, was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination). The deleted version was largely written by Jpbowen. After deletion he wrote a section in Hershey, Pennsylvania ([156]). He also created a redirect (deleted Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 30#IGI Global) using {{redirect with possibilities}} despite it just having been deleted. He just re-created the deleted article. I think this is now at the level of WP:POINT. And also WP:COI: Jpbowen is, he confirms, Jonathan Bowen, and it takes about nine seconds to verify that he has been published by IGI (e.g. Virtual Collaboration and Community, Ann Borda (VeRSI, Australia) and Jonathan P. Bowen. In Information Resources Management Association (ed.), Virtual Communities: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications, IGI Global, chapter 8.9, pages 2600-2611, 2011.). Guy (Help!) 15:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dog and rapper vandal active range

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

---

The Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal is active again in the range Special:Contributions/2601:43:0:3F09:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get a rangeblock? Note that previous rangeblocks on this guy have been lengthy, for instance 1.5 years on Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, and one year for Special:Contributions/172.56.28.0/23 and Special:Contributions/208.54.90.0/24. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Range blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Kleuske's haste Re:Environmental racism in Europe

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit-warring, and disruptive editing by anonymous editor

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Here are examples of going in circles with the IP: [157], [158]. Attic Salt Attic Salt (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Edit warrior 2?

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image issue

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

User:Klaun

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

---

Klaun is continuously removing the references. In diff [159], his edit summary stated that he is removing unsourced and repeated facts. But instead he removed 5 important references and the fact and information/reference about collector notice in Madhya Pradesh to celebrate the event was removed completely. This information was well-referenced, still he removed it. Some of the important references removed were: [160][161] Earlier also I have observed the similiar issue of removal of references by Klaun - [162]. The reason which he stated about removal of reference doesn't seem appropriate. Amicable always (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by disruptive anonymous IP

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

---

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

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

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

Rtc and birth control

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

Context: "fertility awareness methods" of birth control are advocated almost exclusively by religious groups, as they have a high failure rate. User rtc is trying to include special pleading about how they are really not a lottery after all as long as you use multiple techniques. So far he has tried edit warring, condescension[163] and WP:POINTy tagging[164][165]. Numerous other editors are reverting the changes, including Doc James, who I think we're all aware is medically qualified. I think a topic ban is needed. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for proving my point? Or possibly missing it entirely, I'm not sure. You might want to read Wikipedia:When to cite. The claim that the earth will have sufficient oxygen on it to support human life tomorrow does not, actually, require a citation because it is not "challenged or likely to be challenged". The same goes for 100% abstinence preventing pregnancy. If you're going to make an absurd claim like the idea that a woman can become pregnant from a sharing a bed with a man despite there being no sexual contact between them (and ruling out cases of somnophilic/drugged rape, since those do involve sexual contact), then you need a reliable source to back it up. The opposite does not hold true. Claiming it does is either sheer bloody-mindedness to the point of surrealism, or deliberate disruption. Based on the series of WP:POINTy tags you added to the birth control article ([166][167][168]) after your previous edits were reverted, I'm leaning towards the latter. Marianna251TALK 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

This discussion is relevant, because you have been changing the wording of the article to change the claims about the efficacy of abstinence ([169][170][171]); when these were apparently to "follow the source", Doc James explained to you why the original followed the source better. In defending these edits, you made some frankly absurd claims here, to which several editors, myself included, responded with incredulity. You added tags to the article to introduce doubt to perfectly acceptable statements in the article only after your changes were reverted several times as incorrect/not an improvement and the issues were discussed on the talk page. That's listed as one of the classic WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, so yes, WP:POINT is wholly relevant here, as was BB's question and the corresponding discussion. You made some edits; they were reverted with an explanation; you kept making them; the problems with them were further explained to you; you responded with condescension; you decided to switch from the edits that kept being reverted to instead add specious, irrelevant tags to other editors' work. This could have stayed as a content dispute until you added those tags - in my opinion, that tipped your behaviour over into disruptive editing and fully justified JzG's report here. Marianna251TALK 15:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Possible behavioral problems at 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#Tyre column irrelevant

• Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship#Tyre column irrelevant
• 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing conflict on a discussion thread with one user seemingly taking control of the matter and thinking he has the authority to declare it closed when consensus has not been obtained. Looking for senior editors/admin viewpoints on general behavior and actions of all users from a neutral perspective. MetalDylan (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I've dropped a warning to the editor in question that he needs to be more mindful of policy in discussion. That said, you have not notified the editor in question that you have started an ANI topic on his behavior, as is required and as is stated in bold in the orange box above the edit window, so I have done it for you; in the future, please remember to notify people you are bringing to ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User sig issue

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being followed by IBAN

I did not think to much of this [172][173], but then this happened [174]. I had checked the article first to make sure other editors were not present and had no interest in far-right German parties. It is very difficult to keep my distance when others do not.

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

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

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

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

Mush fancruft

I ran into user:Daniel.Cardenas recently whose account is near-SPA for electric cars and Tesla products in particular. Makes fanboy edits and arguments.

Per his edit count he has been here since 2005 and has around 9000 edits.

To give you the flavor of his editing

• 333 Usage share of web browsers (contribs there, most recent Jan 2017
• 321 Electric car (contribs there, most recent Oct 2017
• 163 Toyota Prius (contribs there, most recent in 2011)
• 144 Electric motorcycles and scooters (contribs there most recent 2008)
• 118 Motor vehicle emissions (contribs there, most recent 2013

Most recently these edits. These edits have nothing to do with what we are up to here in Wikipedia, and everything to do with Daniel.Cardenas's fanhood/passion:

• !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Roadster (2020): *Keep Revolutionary product that puts gas cars to shame.
• at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Semi:
  • comment: LOL, this is not a short article. The implications of the announcement are huge. Thousands of people dying because of pollution, thousands dying because of drugged or drowsy semi drivers. The truck will revolutionize the industry. If you do a search on a given 24 hour period you will find thousands of hits on this topic.
  • !vote: Keep'. Very useful for research. 1500 views per day.
  • comment: The industry analysts have zero credibility. They have been predicting Tesla bankruptcy and other ills for years.
  • comment: Popularity of a topic doesn't mean it is encyclopedic, but it is a strong indication. WP:CRYSTAL product announcement is intended for the myriad of product announcements that happen readily, like a new version of car. Done with a press release and a couple of paragraphs of relevant info. In comparison there are working prototypes demonstrated to live audience, orders being taken, detailed specs released, including pricing. http://tesla.com/semi Product is being discussed widely from several perspectives and continues to be referenced widely in the media everyday. The article continues to be expanded everyday. And daily page views show the exceptional value of this page. (note the inclusion of spam link)
• diffs, string of blatantly POV diffs, removing exceptionally high quality refs like this Bloomberg analysis of the battery claims.

• here they remove the AfD template from the article, while the AfD is ongoing. reverted by bot.

On Talk pages:

• section abusing Talk page to chat about Exciting New Developments kicked off with a ref that the user himself says is not usable in WP.

• In the Tesla Semi article
  • first edit is adding spam link
  • next edit adds pure advertising copy + second bareURL spam link (among other stuff): Among Tesla's unique capabilities are 0-60 time of 5 seconds unloaded and 20 seconds with 80,000 lbs of load. Able to maintain a speed of 65 mph up a 5% grade with a full load. Estimated savings of $200,000 a year in fuel costs. Will come in two configurations of 300 and 500 mile range.
  • adds EL to video of Musk pitching the truck
  • adds content citing that same video with a bareURL. There are plenty of written sources already cited in the article with this info (we now have WP:CIR on top of PROMO/fancruft)
  • adds more content, also cited to the same video, with full bareURL spamlink again, adding purely speculative content using the same tense they would as if they were writing "the sun will come up tomorrow" Operating costs will beat that of a diesel truck from day one when considering all costs including insurance.
  • adds more hard-selling: Having autopilot standard helps with insurance costs. Tesla warranties the truck for a million miles which helps with lease costs. Low maintenance for EVs help with operating costs, like never having to replace the brakes due to regenerative braking. (note, they did also add here a bit of non-fanboy content claimed by Tesla but not independently verified. But in the fanboy content, they show that they actually think regenerative braking has something to do with regenerating the brakes. So this person is not only an incompetent editor adding fancruft to Wikipedia, they don't even understand the basics of the car stuff they are raving about.

In other articles

• diff in true advocate form, adding content about health sourced to very non-MEDRS refs.
• diff adds content not in the source provided to Keep Hope Alive.
• but then here regurgitates hyping press release + churnalism refs about it
• creates an article sourced almost entirely from bareURL SPS

Please see this discussion at their talk page, where they write things like Your blinded by your negatively. I've indicated on the talk page how edits are not hype. Read it (diff)

Anyway we resolved that issue and he stood down but and today he stormed back in and went back to the same behavior of trying to force in fancruft, after others had reached a consensus at talk (at Talk:Tesla_Semi#Orders) and in the article itself, to exclude detail about pre-orders of the Tesla Semi and just have high-level, encyclopedic content.

He first wrote at talk} Agree the list of orders is relevant and encyclopedic. It shows that the industry is backing this endeavour, adds notability to the article, and adds credibility to the manufacturer claims (note that none of that has to do with Wikipedia's mission) and then promptly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tesla_Semi&type=revision&diff=816301910&oldid=816294924 re-expanded this stuff and have edit warred to restore it diff, diff, diff. He made a subsequent argument here: There is no question that the topic is very notable; we need content that shows notability (This is incoherent and in any case, we had an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Semi| AfD on this] and the close was "snowball keep").

This person is not here to build an encyclopedia but rather continually Assert the Importance and Inevitability of Our Technologically Driven Future with Musk as Our Great Hero as well as his own Superior Knowledge of It, although he apparently barely understands it. We all have work to do building WP.

Please at minimum topic ban him from all things Musk and please consider, from alternatively-fueled vehicles. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)